Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Sergeant Hetherington, No. 53, Royal Engineers, of 104, Stubbin Lane, Sheffield, who was killed on 8th August, 1916, left an eldest son, Harry, who from birth has suffered from paralysis, so that he is not able either to wash or dress himself; that had the father lived this son would have been supported; and whether, under these circumstances, he will approve the continuation of a grant?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The extension of a maintenance allowance for a child after the age of 16 is a temporary provision only, and cannot under the terms of the Warrant be continued beyond the age of 21. As the child in question has attained the latter age, I have no authority to continue the allowance.

Mr. WILSON: Is this not a case which points to the necessity for some inquiry such as has been suggested for cases of this kind?

Major TYRON: I am aware, of course, of the difficulty to which hon. Members refer, but I am not prepared to recommend so far-reaching an alteration, nor, I may say, were any of my predecessors.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman at his disposal any funds which might be used in exceptional cases?

Major TRYON: I do not want to commit myself, but I think a solution of that kind might be a helpful way out.

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. PALING: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions upon what grounds the majority of the 2,784 applications for education grants were refused by the Special Grants Committee; and how many of such applications were on behalf of boys and girls who had gained scholarships for secondary schools?

Major TRYON: No statistical record is, I fear, kept which would enable this information to be given. I understand that cases may be found ineligible for grant on various grounds, a large number being altogether outside the scope of the Regulations. But I am informed that in a majority of the cases referred to the applicants were found ineligible by reason of the fact that the circumstances of the parent or parents were not such as to make payment of school fees, in addition to the maintenance of the child (which is already ordinarily provided by allowance under the Warrant), a proper charge upon public funds. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a grant towards the expenses of education as such is, under the Statute and Regulations governing the matter, only payable out of public funds in exceptional circumstances, where it is clear that, owing solely to the death or disablement of the father in consequence of war service, the additional cost cannot otherwise be met.

Mr. PALING: Does not the large number of applications that has been turned down indicate that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is rather harsh in this matter, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, particularly since 1918, the number of working-class people anxious for their children to have secondary education has grown very rapidly, and, in these circumstances, does he not think his Department might act more generously to these particular applications?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to admit that every case sent on by district committees is of equal merits. The committees may vary.

Mr. MORRISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman admit there is no possibility of the special grants committee, or any other committee, knowing whether a man killed 10 years ago would not have been able to give his child a secondary school education, and in view of that, will
the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to have this Regulation altered?

Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member's intention would be to give secondary education to every child of every soldier who has been killed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because in the existing conditions there have to be exceptional circumstances.

Mr. PALING: But will the right hon. Gentleman not admit that a scholarship case is exceptional?

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number and the names of persons now serving on the Special Grants Committee; and whether the decisions of the Committee are regarded as final or if they are subject to review or amendment by the Ministry?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions who are the present members of the Special Grants Committee; and whether their decisions are subject to his consent?

Major TRYON: The membership of the Special Grants Committee Is at present 13. I am circulating the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. All applications for grants are determined by the Special Grants Committee in accordance with their rules of working as approved by the Minister from time to time, subject only to such audit check as is necessarily applicable to all proposals for expenditure out of the public funds voted by Parliament to the service of my Department.

Mr. KENNEDY: Do I understand that the decision of the Special Grants Committee is not subject to the revision of the Minister, and that the Committee act independently?

Major TRYON: The grants are determined by the Committee in accordance with the rules of working, as approved by the Minister from time to time, but, necessarily, they have to be such as are approved by this House for the purpose of securing to Parliament control of public funds.

Mr. BECKETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that these men
are unlucky enough, without having to bear this?

Following are the members of the Special Grants Committee:

Sir Reginald Brade, G.C.B. (Chairman).
Colonel A. D. Acland, C.B.E.
Brigadier-General L. Banon, C.B.
Mrs. Jean Bevan, O.B.E.
Sir Coles Child, Bart., J.P., D.L.
S. Chorlton, Esq.
Sir Bertram Cubitt, K.C.B.
Alderman Hardaker, J.P.
Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P.
J. H. Knaggs, Esq.
Dame Ethel Shakespear, D.B.E., D.Sc, J.P.
Lieutenant-General The Hon. Sir Frederick Stopford, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O.
A. G. Webb, Esq.

PENSION REFUSED. C. COOK, PECKHAM.

Mr. DALTON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Cook, of 25, Hollydale Road, Peckham, a blinded ex-service man, has been refused a pension on the ground that his blindness was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service; and whether, having regard to the fact that Mr. Cook has now been admitted to St. Dunstan's benefits and that the St. Dunstan's ophthalmic advisory board has decided that his blindness is due to military service, he will reopen this case in view of this new medical opinion which is at variance with that of the Ministry's advisers?

Major TRYON: The claim of the man referred to, which was first made in February last year, was most carefully considered by the Ministry, with specialist advice, in the light of all the facts and the history of his case, and his defective vision was found not to be attributable to or aggravated by war service. This decision was confirmed on appeal of last year by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in July, who also took independent specialist opinion. The fact that any voluntary fund has been independently-advised that it is entitled to take a view of a case which appears to differ from that both of the Ministry and of the statutory Appeal Tribunal cannot determine the action which my Department should take.

Mr. DALTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the medical opinion available at St. Dunstan's is perhaps the highest opinion of the kind in the country, and does not the fact that this opinion is at variance with that of the Ministry raise a strong presumption in favour of reopening this case?

Major TRYON: I think it is obviously the decision of Parliament that in all questions of doubt the decision should rest with the Appeal Tribunal. It is quite clear that in this case there was a doubt, but the Special Appeal Tribunal decided that what the Ministry had done was the right course.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. ROBINSON: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether any alteration has been made in the Regulations under which a man in receipt of treatment allowances continues to draw pension for his stepchildren and treatment allowances for his wife and children; and whether his attention has been drawn to a case in Lambeth where the pensioner has been deprived of 5s. weekly owing to the suspension of the pension of two step-children and treatment allowances issued in respect of the two children?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, if the hon. Member will give me the name and other particulars, to enable me to identify the case he refers to, I will have inquiry made and will communicate with him.

PENSION RE-ISSUE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in all cases where a pension is re-issued under the dispensing warrant of 1884 it is necessary for him to submit the case to the Treasury before the pension can be issued; and, if so, in view of the delay involved and the hardship entailed on the pensioner during the waiting period, sometimes as long as three months, he will take steps to secure for the Ministry of Pensions full authority to issue pensions under the dispensing warrant when, in the opinion of his advisers, it is found that a pension should be reissued?

Major TRYON: A grant under the instrument referred to can only be made with the concurrence of the Treasury, but
arrangements have been made which obviate any delay from this cause. Careful investigation into cases is, however, in any event necessary, and on occasion this must inevitably involve some delay. I have, however, taken steps to expedite the procedure as far as possible.

APPEAL TRIBUNALS (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 137.
asked the Treasurer of the Household if he is aware that pension appeal tribunals are refusing to deal with appeals not entered within the statutory time limit, on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to deal with such cases; and if he can say how such appeals, if sanctioned by the Ministry, are disposed of?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): The Pension Appeal Tribunals are bound by the Provisions of the War Pensions Acts to limit their jurisdiction to cases in which the appeal has been lodged within the statutory time. They have, therefore, no option but to refuse to hear cases in which it is proved to their satisfaction that the terms of the Statutes have not been complied with. It is, however, open to any appellant against whom it is alleged that his appeal was not lodged within the statutory time to go before the tribunals on the issue of whether he has, in fact, complied with the statutory requirements, and whether the tribunals have jurisdiction to hear his appeal.

EXECUTION, SHEPTON MALLET.

Colonel DAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the execution shed at Shepton Mallet gaol is against the wall of the prison, and that at the execution on the 2nd March a large crowd of men, women, and children were able, by placing their ears to the said wall, to hear the execution; and will he take steps to prevent a repetition of this?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir WilliamJoynson-Hicks): The execution was carried out, not in a shed against the outer wall of the prison, but in a brick building 43 feet from that wall. It is diffi-
cult to believe that persons behaving in the manner described could have heard what is suggested.

CABINET MINISTERS (POLICE PROTECTION).

Colonel DAY: 11.
asked the Home Secretary the number of police officers engaged for the protection of Cabinet Ministers, together with the approximate amount of wages paid such police officers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The numbers vary from time to time At present there are 11 officers so employed.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the Cabinet Ministers at present object to being submitted to this inconvenience?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Whether that is so or not, it is a matter which is the responsibility of the police, and not of the Cabinet Ministers personally. The head of the police thinks it is right that they should take this precaution.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a waste of money to have these policemen stationed outside flats in London?

Sir W.JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir.

MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet able to recommend to the House the introduction of a Clause supplementary to the Nationality Acts enabling British women on their marriage to foreigners to retain their nationality unless and until by the municipal law of their husbands' country they acquire his nationality; whether he has yet received from the various Dominion Governments their views upon this suggestion; and, if so, whether these views are friendly or unfriendly to it?

Sir W.JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that the reply of the Canadian Government on this subject is still being awaited, and the position is therefore as indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend on the 19th November last. I understand that the attention of that Government is again being drawn to the matter.

NIGHT CLUBS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has made any progress with the discovery of a legal formula defining a bogus night club; and whether he will either take more drastic steps to deal with the evil, or come to this House for further powers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Steps are continually being taken to deal with clubs which contravene the existing law. As to amendment of the law, I can add nothing to the reply I gave on the 4th February.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman promised legislation to deal with the difficulties of this question at the beginning of last year? Can he really report no progress in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can report a good deal of progress. Although it is quite true I have not introduced any legislation, I have paid very great attention to the subject, and proceedings have been taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the powers under the existing law are sufficient?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid you will find no Home Secretary is ever satisfied with the extent of this powers, but I am utilising all the powers I have for this purpose.

Mr. SPENCER: Does the right hon. Gentleman object to examining the bona fides of a club when it sits until six o'clock in the morning?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that it is almost impossible to define these clubs? Is that not one of the difficulties?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is one of the great difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CENTRAL MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Mr. PALING: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have received grants from the Central Miners' Welfare Fund for providing buildings and other
facilities for instruction in mining; how many have actually submitted plans and proposals for the same; and how many are in process of construction, or are likely to proceed to build, in the immediate future?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Grants from the central portion of the Miners' Welfare Fund for providing buildings and other facilities for higher instruction in mining have up to the present date been received by 13 local education authorities in England and Wales. In each case plans have been submitted to and approved by my Department, and the schemes for which the grants have been made are in every case completed or in course of completion, since it is one of the conditions laid down by the Miners' Welfare Committee in regard to allocations for these purposes that no grant can be paid till the plans have been approved and the money is required for immediate expenditure. Until that stage is reached the allocations made by the committee remain on a provisional basis, and with regard to the sum at present provisionally allocated, in which 11 authorities are interested, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Clowes) on the 4th March last, a copy of which I am sending him.

CRANEMOOR SCHOOL.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he had received on 1st December last plans for repairs and enlargement of Cranemoor Church of England School as indicated under the recent survey; and whether he has come to any decision with regard to them?

Lord E. PERCY: The preliminary plans were received in my Department on 30th January last. They are generally satisfactory, and have been returned to the managers through the local authority for the preparation of final plans.

HOYLAND SWAINE SCHOOL.

Mr. SMITH: 36.
also asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Hoyland Swaine School was taken over from the Church of England three years ago; that a promise was then given to undertake
repairs and improvements without delay; that these repairs are only just being undertaken; and whether he can explain the cause of this delay?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the facts as represented in the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part, the delay appears to have been due mainly to the difficulty which the authority experienced in getting tenders for the work in this isolated country district.

NATIONAL SCHOOL, THURGOLAND.

Mr. SMITH: 37.
further asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Thurgoland National School was closed for repairs and improvements from Christmas holidays to 2nd March, and no instruction was given to these children; that county minor scholarship scholars during this period had no facilities for instruction; and whether he can suggest alternative accommodation for scholars when schools are closed for such lengthy periods?

Lord E. PERCY: The question of the temporary provision of alternative accommodation in the circumstances described by the hon. Member is one for the consideration of the local authorities and school managers.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Noble Lord not aware that there are quite a number of rural schools in the country where repairs have been undertaken which have involved the scholars in long holidays, and will he be prepared to consider the cost of contributing toward(r) the expenses of taking these children to other schools still open in their area?

Lord E. PERCY: Each of these cases differs in circumstance. I am prepared to consider anything that the local authorities may propose to me.

SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has given his approval to the new Secondary School at Heaton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for which a site has been purchased and the plans are in an advanced state of preparation?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir.

UNSUITABLE SCHOOLS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education how soon he intends to take definite steps to require local authorities to replace the 665 schools which have been placed in Category A as unsuitable for continued recognition and incapable of improvement?

Lord E. PERCY: The rate at which these schools can be replaced must depend upon the particular circumstances of the individual areas concerned, and it is of the greatest importance that replacement should be provided for in connection with a considered scheme of reorganisation. Proposals for the replacement of a number of these schools are already included in the revised forecasts and I am satisfied that authorities and school managers generally realise the importance of dealing with as large a proportion as possible of the remainder in their programmes. It must be remembered that this problem is affected in many areas by movements of population consequent upon housing developments.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is the Noble Lord going eventually to prepare for the entire replacement of these schools? Is he aware that statements are being made that some authorities do not intend to replace them; and will he take steps to force them to do so?

Lord E. PERCY: I have heard no statements of that kind. As to what action I shall take in a certain eventuality, I think I had better wait till the eventuality arises.

Mr. COVE: If the local authorities are prepared to give an undertaking in regard to these schools will they still have a statutory guarantee of a contribution towards the necessary expense?

Lord E. PERCY: Those authorities which submit proposals for capital expenditure of which I approve will have the grant according to the regulations in force at the time.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many children are now being taught in schools which have been placed in Category A as having premises which are unsuitable for continued recognition, and incapable of improvement?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on 25th February last to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris), a copy of which I am sending him.

SENIOR DEPARTMENTS, DARLINGTON.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the Board's intention to cancel the scheme of the Darlington Education Committee for the provision of practical rooms in the senior departments of its schools?

Lord E. PERCY: I understand that such provision has been made in the authority's revised estimates, and I hope to be able to communicate my decision on the matter to the authority at an early date.

DENTAL TREATMENT, ISLE OF WIGHT.

Mr. W. BAKER: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that after the Isle of Wight Education Authority had prepared a dental treatment scheme, at the urgent request of the Board, the whole scheme has been held up as a result of Circular 1371 and the subsequent Memorandum issued by his Department; and whether, seeing that the local authority have made every possible economy, he will authorise them to proceed with the scheme.

Lord E. PERCY: I am considering this project in connection with the revised Estimates for 1926–27, and hope to be able to communicate my decision to the authority very shortly.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: Is it the fact that, in spite of the alleged action of Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44, the Estimates this year show a considerable increase over last year?

Lord E. PERCY: That is the fact.

Mr. COVE: Do they run to £1,250,000?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the Estimates.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Noble Lord remember, before he turns down dental treatment, the lamentable condition of the teeth of the men who offered for the Army in 1914?

Lord E. PERCY: The Noble Lady may be assured that I shall remember all I ought to do.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. HARRIS: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether changes are contemplated in the means of payment of pensions and annuities to retired teachers; and whether it is proposed to require pensioned teachers to obtain payment of their pensions through local branches of banks?

Lord E. PERCY: Teachers pensioned under the Teachers Superannuation Acts are required to obtain payment through a bank, and no change in that respect is proposed. The forms of claim are at present issued quarterly by my Department to the pensioners. It is proposed, in order to save time and labour, that in future the forms shall be issued, a year's supply at each issue, by the Paymaster-General's Office.

SCHOOL STAFFS.

Mr. HARRIS: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in response to Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44, local education authorities are revising their staffing arrangements for 1926–27, and that already there is evidence of a diminished demand for teachers who will be leaving the training colleges during June and July of this year; and whether he will issue to the training colleges a communication which may reassure the students now experiencing anxiety as to their future?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware that local authorities are reviewing the staffing of their schools, but I do not think that the students now in training colleges need feel much anxiety as to their chances of employment.

NEW SECONDARY SCHOOL, CARDIFF.

Mr. COVE: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education what decision has been reached with reference to the proposal to erect a new secondary school in the Cathays Ward, Cardiff, for which the Cardiff Authority has been allowed to purchase the site and draw up the plans?

Lord E. PERCY: This proposal is not included in the revised Estimates submitted to me by the authority, and I assume they have decided to postpone it for inclusion in their programme.

Mr. COVE: Is the Noble Lord aware that in a local journal it is stated that it has been turned down by his Department?

Lord E. PERCY: No, I do not know what is reported in the local Press, but I am giving the hon. Member the facts.

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Mr. VIANT: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the resolution adopted by the Willesden Education Committee, expressing full agreement with the decision of the Board of Education to make the salaries of all teachers conform with the Burnham Award, but that the payments of grant should be on a basis equivalent to that now in force; and whether he is now taking any steps to assure education authorities that the grant will not be altered to their prejudice?

Lord E. PERCY: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I am sending to each of the authorities' associations a communication indicating my reasons for taking the action which I have taken, and my belief that the reforms in the present grant system, which I feel to be necessary, and which I am now discussing with authorities, will not have the effect which appears to be apprehended in the resolution.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, SCHOOL (PONTRHONDDA).

Mr. JOHN: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the cause of the delay in sanctioning the carrying out of the work in connection with a school for mentally defective children at Pontrhondda which has been approved by the Board and the expenditure on which is very small?

Lord E. PERCY: This proposal is receiving consideration in connection with the revised Estimates for 1926–27.

POLICE (WHITE OVERALLS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any reports regarding the efficacy of white overalls used in certain towns by police-
men on point duty; and whether he intends to have such overalls adopted by the Metropolitan police at an early date?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 18th February to questions on this subject by the hon. Member for Acton and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.

FIGHTING SERVICES (MR. LANSBURY'S SPEECH, ALBERT HALL).

Mr. DIXEY: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting at Kensington on Sunday night the 7th instant, when the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) called upon soldiers, sailors, and airmen to refuse under any circumstances to shoot down the workers of Britain, and upon working-class men not to join the capitalist armies; and what action does he propose to take?

Sir FRANK MEYER: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to proceedings at a public meeting held at the Albert Hall, on Sunday, 7th March, where the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley urged members of His Majesty's forces to refrain from certain action under certain conditions; and whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action in the matter?

Commander FANSHAWE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to speeches of a seditious character delivered in the Albert Hall on 7th March by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean; and what steps he proposes to take?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 21.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a speech, delivered by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley at the Albert Hall on the 7th March; and whether, in view of the incitement to His Majesty's Forces contained in that speech to disobey possible lawful commands by heir officers, he will take such measures as the law provides?

Mr. SMITHERS: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been
called to speeches delivered on the evening of Sunday, 7th March, at the Albert Hall; has he received an official report of the proceedings; has he consulted the Law Officers of the Crown; and what steps does he propose to take?

Colonel APPLIN: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the words of a Socialist speaker at the Albert Hall on Sunday the 7th instant, who urged all soldiers, sailors, and airmen at the meeting under no circumstances to fire on workers; and whether, in view of the nature of this speech, he will take immediate steps to enforce the Law?

Colonel WOODCOCK: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting held in the Albert Hall on the evening of 7th March, when the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley officiated as chairman and moved a resolution which is calculated to breed disaffection among the members of the fighting forces and incite troops to disobey their officers; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to initiate any proceedings against the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley in respect of the seditious speech made by him at the Albert Hall last Sunday?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will answer these questions together. In my opinion, the speech of the hon. Member, which was delivered under somewhat melodramatic circumstances, does not in itself constitute a menace to the loyalty of the Forces of the Crown, but any further developments will be carefully watched by my Department.

Mr. DIXEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman put this case before the Law Officers of the Crown, and, if so, what advice did they give him?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the first place, I think it is not permitted to ask me to say what advice the Law Officers gave me; but I think I am entitled to say that I have not asked their advice in this matter.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this resolution, and does it not affirm that the Government are out to shoot the working people down?

Mr. MACKINDER: They have done so.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have considered the resolution, and I think the suggestion in it is so ridiculous that it would be equally ridiculous on my part to make it the subject of a solemn prosecution.

Mr. W. THORNE: Was the speech in question any more violent than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself at Warrington on 13th December?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; I think it was considerably more.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether it is true or not that the speech in question and the Resolution were drafted by learned counsel?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no knowledge on that point.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Thorne !

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there were seven questions referring to this very important subject, upon which we feel very deeply?

Mr. SPEAKER: There might be 17 questions on the same subject, but one answer may do for them all.

BLACKFRIARS ROAD ACCIDENT.

Mr. W. THORNE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the collapse of some scaffolding on buildings in the course of erection in Blackfriars Road, on Monday, 8th March, when five men were injured, if he is aware that the platform was 30 feet high and there was a large number of bricks and building material upon it; and if he will have inquiries made into the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Inquiries have already been made by the factory inspector in this case, and the report shows that the accident was due, not to any collapse of scaffolding, but to the giving way of the concrete floor of the basement, on which were resting the temporary wooden supports that held up the joists of the ground floor and first floor.

Mr. W. THORNE: Did the inspector make inquiries as to whether the supports were withdrawn too early?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I must ask the hon. Member for notice if the hon. Member wants further details.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is there not somewhere in the Home Office a document dealing with accidents that have happened in the building trades, and if the workpeople are not protected enough, will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no need to look into it. I received a deputation from the building trade operatives upon the matter, and it will be included in the forthcoming Factories Bill.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the Report issued by the Committee of the Privy Council with regard to the contributions to Imperial funds made by the islands of Jersey, Guernsey and Man; and whether he proposes to give effect to its recommendations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot add anything at present to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames on the 2nd instant.

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45 and 46.
asked the Prime Minister (1) how many meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence have taken place during the present year;
(2) whether any Member of His Majesty's Government is present at the joint meetings of the chiefs of staff of the Royal Navy, His Majesty's Army, and the Royal Air Force; if so, who is the Minister or Ministers; and how many joint meetings have been held during the present year?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I shall answer these questions together. The proceedings of the Committee of Im-
perial Defence are part of the ordinary consultative machinery of Cabinet administration. Cabinets and their policy, of course, depend upon this House; but I do not think anything is gained by supplying such fragments of information as those asked for by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to details of their procedure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the phrase "fragments of information" to apply to my Question 46, which I shall be glad if he will look at again? This is a constitutional matter. Is he not aware—

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very pleased to give all the information in process of Debate, but—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want it before the Debate.

The PRIME MINISTER—: but the difficulty in giving what I call "fragments of information" is that, in the absence of the knowledge which I think it is necessary to have about the constitution of these bodies and their working, such information is apt to be misleading, unless the system is understood. The matter in question, as I have said, has not been discussed in this House for 14 years. I think a Debate on the whole matter is overdue, and I should be only too pleased to make a full statement to explain the number of times' meetings take place, and the circumstances in which they take place.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: May I ask whether any Cabinet Ministers are earmarked for work on the Committee of Imperial Defence, as in the case of the War Cabinet during the War?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps, without anticipating what I may say in the course of the Debate, I may state that the only Cabinet Minister that I know of who is earmarked for that, as for everything else, is the Prime Minister.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House when we are likely to have the Debate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have said, in answer to that question, that I think it would be most conveniently raised on my Vote, and if either section of the
Opposition will put it down in the course of the Session on a Supply Day, we can have a full day's Debate on this matter.

AIRSHIP CONSTRUCTION.

Commander BELLAIRS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee of Imperial Defence, in pursuance of combined action between the three fighting Services, have formed any conclusion that airships will be largely used for naval reconnaissance, as put forward in all the suggestions as to their utility; whether all previous airships have been built under the supervision of the Admiralty; and whether the Admiralty have been fully consulted as to the designs of the two airships?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The answer to the third part is also in the negative, the aim of the Air Ministry being to produce airships to meet the requirements of all three Services, e.g., as aircraft carriers and for the conveyance of troops, as well as for naval purposes. I may add that responsibility for the design and construction of airships was transferred from the Admiralty to the Air Ministry in 1919/20, together with a portion of the staff hitherto employed on this work by the Admiralty.

Commander BELLAIRS: With reference to the second part of my question, as to whether all previous airships have been built under the supervision of the Admiralty, may I ask the Prime Minister if he can tell me of any airship that has not been built under the supervision of the Admiralty?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes; all the airships that were built by the Army.

Commander BELLAIRS: Am I to understand, therefore, that the Air Department has no experience in building airships, and that the Department which has experience is not to be consulted?

FOODSTUFFS (HANDLING).

54.Colonel DAY: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the recommendation contained in the book recently issued by the Royal Sani-
tary Institute to deal with the handling of foodstuffs; and whether he will see that the suggestions are acted upon?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. I have received a copy of the book, which contains a number of valuable suggestions as to the handling of food. Many of them, as the authors recognise, are more suitable as a basis for propaganda than for stautory Regulations, and I hope that they will receive due publicity. The subject of clean food is under the constant attention of my Department, and Regulations on such questions as meat, milk and food preservatives have recently been made or published in draft.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the Public Health Act of last year contained a Clause embodying all the recommendations of the Royal Sanitary Institute in respect of the handling of food.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. AMMON: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether instructions have been issued or Regulations framed to the effect that the means limit test for old age pensioners is to be imposed upon voluntary contributors under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. TAYLOR: 61.
asked the Minister of Health under which section of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act the draft Regulations and the Circular of 27th February,1926, referring to the position of voluntary or employed contributors in excepted employments, were issued; and whether he is aware that the effect of such Regulations is to impose a means test on persons over 45 at the date of their last entry into full insurance in respect of their right to an old age pension at 65?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 94.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state on what authority he has issued Regulations or memoranda to approved societies relating to excepted persons
becoming voluntary contributors after 3rd January, 1926, which reduce the old age pension payable at 65 years in the case of a man and his wife for no other reason than that they are having compulsory deductions made from their wages for superannuation purposes; when are these Regulations to be laid before the House of Commons; and will an opportunity be afforded to discuss them before they become operative?

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 109.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the Regulations which he has issued, in conjunction with the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, in respect of voluntary contributors to the new pensions scheme, seeing that such Regulations will prevent those in excepted employments under the Crown, public authority employés, railway men, etc., who may come under superannuation schemes from receiving the same benefit from the scheme for old age pensions as compulsory contributors will obtain, and that the same contribution will have to be paid in each case, will he state why the voluntary contributors' benefits are less favourable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with permission, answer these questions together. The draft Regulations in question are issued in accordance with Section 15 (7) (b) of the Act, which provides that in the case of the persons specified therein the provisions of the Act relating to old age pensions payable there under, or by virtue thereof, shall apply in such circumstances only, and subject to such modifications as may be prescribed. The effect of that provision is that Regulations must be made before the persons referred to can be entitled to old age pensions under the Act. The reason underlying the provision was that the persons affected while engaged in excepted employment, pay a contribution for widows' and orphans' pensions only, and the Pensions Fund does not receive in respect of them the contributions ordinarily paid for old age pensions. It is obvious, therefore, that if old age pensions at the normal rate were to be provided for such of these persons as became fully insured—e.g., by becoming voluntary contributors—late in life, there would be a heavy loss to the fund. I would point out that these Regulations only affect pensions payable under or by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Act,
and so far as any of the persons in question have a title to an unreduced old age pension under the 1908 to 1924 Acts, that title is unaffected. The draft Regulations will be made substantive shortly after Easter and will then, in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 (3) of the Act, be laid before the House which, by the same Sub-section is given ample opportunity for discussing them.

Mr. TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this is a violation of the central principle of the Act—that the means tests should be abolished for contributory pensions under the Act? What justification is there for refusing the full benefits of the contributory system merely because men have had to contribute to a superannuation fund as a condition of employment?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask why this information was not sent out to approved societies, so that applicants for membership might have the information before they joined?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the first supplementary question, obviously this is not in conflict with any principle in the Act, because it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act itself which I have quoted. As to the second part of the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) the difference does not arise because they are in receipt of superannuation allowances, it is, as I stated in my answer, because their contributions when they were paying as excepted members were reduced contributions, because they were only paying in respect of widow's pensions. Therefore the full contribution has not been received by the Fund in respect of them, and we are obliged to make a distinction to save the finances of the Fund. With regard to the supplementary question as to why this information was not sent out, the information is published in the Regulations, and is available, of course, to the approved societies.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not the fact that voluntary contributors under these Regulations will, in effect, be subject to a means test, and that their pension will be scaled down according to the number of years they have been in the fund?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The limitations which are imposed under the Regulations are in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As I have already stated, it is a fact that persons over a certain age will only be entitled under these Regulations to reduced benefits, and the reason for that I have already explained twice.

Mr. TAYLOR: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether the employés of a local authority who are paying the full rate of contribution necessary to qualify for old age pensions at 65 under The Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, will be treated as entitled to the full pension of 10s. per week for themselves and their wives on attaining the age of 65 years without any deduction on account of payments made to them out of superannuation funds established under the Local Government Officers' Superannuation Act of 1922?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The employes of a local authority which has not obtained exception from insurance for old age pensions, and is, therefore, required to pay the full rate of contribution under the Contributory Pensions Act, will, together with their wives, be entitled, on the usual conditions, to old age pensions on attaining 65, without any deduction.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will men over 45, who come into insurance under this arrangement, be entitled to full benefits, while the voluntary contributor, who is paying the full contribution, will not be entitled to full benefit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is referring to voluntary contributors and non-voluntary contributors. I have already pointed out that the employés of the local authority, who have not obtained exemption from insurance for old age pension, will be entitled to the full old age pension without reduction.

Mr. T. KENNEDY,: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the help rendered by the local pensions committees to applicants for the old age pension, he will consider the advisability of utilising the same machinery for dealing with applicants for benefit under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Specific provision is made in the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act
for dealing with applicants for benefit thereunder, and the machinery so set up is materially different from that established by the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924. I have, therefore, no power to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. LANSBURY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married and single, and their dependants, resident in the Poplar Union, were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not inreceipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. COMPTON: 58.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men in the Manchester and Salford area now in receipt of Poor Law relief; and how many of these are drawing this relief as a result of being refused unemployment benefit?

Mr. JOHN: 64.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married and single, and their dependants, resident in the Pontypridd Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief, indoor or outdoor, during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 65.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married or single, and their dependants, resident in the Methyr Tydfil Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief, indoor or outdoor, during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. THURTLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married or single, and their dependants, resident in the Shoreditch Union, were in receipt of Poor Law relief, indoor or outdoor, during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Miss WILKINSON: 68.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married or single, and their dependants, resident in the Middles-
brough Union, were in receipt of Poor Law relief, indoor or outdoor, during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. BARKER: 69.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married or single, and their dependants, resident in the Bedwellty Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men not in receipt of unemployment pay?

Mr. W. THORNE: 70.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married and single, and their dependants, resident in West Ham Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. SCURR: 71.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married and single, and their dependants, resident in the Stepney Union were in receipt of indoor or outdoor relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. JENKINS: 72.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men, married and single, and their dependants, resident in the Neath Union who were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not receiving unemployment benefit?

Mr. DALTON: 73.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, single and married, and their dependants, resident in the Camberwell Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief, indoor and outdoor, during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. J. BECKETT: 74.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men and their dependants, married or single, resident in the Gateshead Union who were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were not receiving unemployment benefit?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 75.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, single and married, and their de-
pendants, resident in the Wandsworth Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief, indoor and outdoor, during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men who were in receipt of allowances from the Ministry of Pensions or unemployment benefit?

Mr. BROAD: 77.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, single or married, and their dependants, resident in the Edmontonu Union were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit; and the number, if any, in receipt of allowances from the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. BROMLEY: 78.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married or single, and their dependants, resident in the Poor Law union covering the borough of Barrow-in-Furness were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men not in receipt of allowances from the Ministry of Pensions or unemployment benefit?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 80.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men, married or single, and their dependants, who were in receipt of relief in the Houghton-le-Spring, South Shields. and Sunderland Unions, respectively, in the week ending 27th February, 1926; and the number of such men who were not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. HAYDAY: 86.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men, married or single, resident in the Nottingham Union, were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the week ending 27th February; and the number of such men not in receipt of unemloyment benefit?

Mr. GIBBINS: 87.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men who were in receipt of Poor Law relief for the week ending the 20th February, 1926, in the West Derby Union?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 93.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men in the Middlesbrough Union who are in receipt of Poor Law relief: and the number who are drawing this relief because they have been refused unemployment benefit?

Mr. CLOWES: 105.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men
in the Stoke-on-Trent and Wolstanton Guardians' area now in receipt of Poor Law relief; and the number of such men not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Captain GEE: Before the Minister of Health answers these questions, may I ask him if it is not a fact that the whole of the information asked for in these 14 or 15 questions could have been obtained from the boards of guardians locally, and thus saved the time of this House and prevent a waste of public money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a considerable number of questions asking for statistics of ex-service men in receipt of Poor Law relief in various unions, and I propose, with permission, to answer all these questions together. The information asked for is not available in my Department. Boards of guardians are not required to classify the recipients of relief according to whether they are or are not ex-service men, and no statistics of this kind are furnished to me. As already stated, I am not prepared to ask boards of guardians to make special investigations which would entail an expense out of proportion to the value of the information obtained.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most boards of guardians conduct their inquiries on the case paper system, and therefore it is simply a matter of putting a clerk to take out information from those papers and give the returns? Has the right hon. Gentlemn asked for this to be done? May I also ask if it is not a fact that whenever a Member of this House requires information concerning a local authority the right hon. Gentleman can get it by asking the local authority for it? Have any of these boards of guardians complained that they are not able or willing to give the information?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any boards of guardians have complained that they are not able or willing to give me the information. I am afraid I have now forgotten what the first question of the hon. Member was.

Mr. LANSBURY: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to persist with this question. The question which I asked the right hon. Gentleman is one which is well known in his Department. I asked: Is it not a fact that most
boards of guardians conduct their inquiries on the case paper system, and is it not also a fact that those who do not are obliged, under the orders of the Ministry, to keep a record of the previous history of every applicant who comes before them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already said, boards of guardians are not required to pick out or classify men who are ex-service men from other categories of men. Therefore, so far as I am aware, boards of guardians have not got that information. Of course I do not say they could not get it.

Mr. LANSBURY: They have got it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that, but if the hon. Member knows that they have got it, perhaps he knows what it is.

Mr. LANSBURY: This is a very important matter. The point is that the Minister of Health stands at that Box, and says he does not know that the Poor Law authorities have this information when he knows that His Department has got it.

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is not entitled to make a statement at Question Time. If he is dissatisfied with the answer, he has a proper remedy by asking for the Vote for the Minister's salary to be put down, when he can move a reduction. Then the House- will have an opportunity of saying whether or not it agrees with the Minister. That is the proper procedure.

Mr. DIXEY: I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to certain questions' put down earlier, numbering about seven. "We were entitled to ask on this side of the House only two supplementary questions. On a point of Order I should like to put it to you, that there should be an equal distribution of supplementary questions on both sides.

Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member is in my place he will be able to conduct the proceedings.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether any of us who put down these questions
are entitled to put down a Motion asking for a Return of these cases to be placed on the Table of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly. The hon. Member can prepare a Motion for the Return, and put it down on the paper. If he fail to get the Return, then he has the further remedy of asking the House to pronounce its opinion in regard to the action of the Minister in Supply, on the Vote for the Minister's salary.

Mr. HAYES: 95.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that ex-Private Alfred Tunstall, No. 140,332, 9th Battalion King's Liverpool Regiment, now of No. 112, Holt Road, Edge Hill, Liverpool, who is unemployed and not in receipt of unemployment pay, applied to the West Derby Board of Guardians, Liverpool, for relief and was given an admission order to the workhouse in lieu of relief, as he was a single man residing with his parent; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent men who fought in the Great War being so treated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not previously been drawn to this case, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. HAYES: May I put the question down again for a reply this day week; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that an admission order for the workhouse is a poor fulfilment of the nation's War promises?

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX.

Mr. GROVES: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of small-pox notified to his Department in 1924 and 1925; how many have proved fatal; the districts from which they came; the vaccinal condition and results of the cases in each district; and the vaccinal condition of each fatal case, including any vaccinations that may have been performed during the incubation period of small-pox?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Answers to the questions in the precise form in which they are asked would involve an amount of time, expense and research which I should be reluctant to impose on my Department. I may, however, as regards small-pox statistics for the year 1924, refer the hon. Member to the Annual
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of my Department for that year, pages 33 to 37. On page 37 will be found a table showing for the country as a whole the number of cases of and deaths from small-pox that occurred during the year, and their vaccinal condition, including those vaccinated during the incubation period. The number of districts invaded and the number of cases in each is given in the table on page 33 of the Report. (Completed figures for the year 1925 are not yet available.)

Mr. GROVES: 106.
asked the Minister of Health the methods adopted by the medical officers of his Department in order to definitely decide whether cases of illness examined by them are small-pox or not; and whether the vaccinal condition of the patients is taken into account as one of the factors to decide the diagnosis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The medical officers of the Ministry who advise in regard to the diagnosis of suspected cases of small-pox are those who have had considerable experience of that disease, and, in forming an opinion as to the nature of the illness, they take into account all known factors, including the vaccinal condition of the patients.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAG FLOCK ACT, 1911.

Mr. MACKINDER: 79.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities are administering the Rag Flock Act, 1911, during the last complete year; what has been the cost of their administration; and how many prosecutions have been instituted, with the results?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 103.
asked the Minister of Health the number of prosecutions under the Rag Flock Act of 1911; and the number of sanitary authorities which are enforcing this Act within their own districts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Act it is the duty of all sanitary authorities to enforce its provisions, but I understand that there are no statistics available giving the particulars desired by the hon. Members.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prosecutions have been instituted in these cases, and are being withdrawn, and that no fines are being imposed in respect of these cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Mr. MACKINDER: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that tons of flock are being made in this country from rags from Asiatic and other foreign countries without being washed, and that there is great danger of the spread of disease, possibly small-pox, in this way?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. R. WILSON: 82.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons are in receipt of out-door relief from the South Shields Poor Law Union who have been disqualified from receiving standard benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the clerk to the guardians that there are 977 cases in which persons who are in receipt of out-relief have been disqualified from receiving standard benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The persons so relieved appear to have 1,854 dependants.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 84.
asked the Minister of Health the amount paid in poor relief to persons who were paid such relief because of unemployment during the last three years for which the figures are available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving the required information.

Following is the statement promised:

The amount of domiciliary Poor Law relief in money and kind given in England and Wales during each of the last three years to persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, and their dependants, was




£


Year ended December, 1923
…
7,465,096


Year ended December, 1924
…
5,359,953


Year ended December, 1925
…
5,600,425


These sums include all domiciliary Poor Law relief in money or kind given to the persons mentioned, whether granted on account of unemployment or for other reasons such as (for example) sickness.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

STATISTICS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 85.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act at the end of each of the last five years, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, give the required information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following are the particulars:
The number of persons in Great Britain insured under the National Health Insurance Act in each of the last 10 years will be found in the last Annual Reports of the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health.

The figures for Great Britain for 1921–1924 are as follow:


1921
…
…
…
15,103,400


1922
…
…
…
15,066,800


1923
…
…
…
15,125,900


1924
…
…
…
15,220,300


The figure for 1925 is not yet available.

APPROVED SOCIETIES (FUNDS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 102.
asked the Minister of Health what was the amount of the funds held by the approved societies on the latest date for which data is available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of funds, apart from reserve values, held by the approved societies in England and Wales on 31st December, 1924, was in round figures as follows:




£


(i)
Sums standing to the credit of approved societies in the National Health Insurance Funds, including amounts in the Investment Account
50,000,000


(ii)
Sums invested by or on behalf of approved societies
40,000,000


(iii)
Cash in hands of Societies
1,000,000



Total
£91,000,000

MILK AND DAIRIES ACT, 1915 (DRAFT ORDERS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 89.
asked the Minister of Health, if he is yet in a position to state when the Draft Orders made by him under Section 1 of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915, will be published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Draft has now been published.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Could we be told when it is going to be laid? We have been waiting for it for some months.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been published.

Mr. ALEXANDER: When will it be laid?

VACCINATION.

Mr. GROVES: 90.
asked the Minister of Health whether instructions or suggestions have been given to boards of guardians for the display of notices in the maternity wards of Poor Law institutions informing parents of their right to exempt their children from vaccination under the Vaccination Act, 1907; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of taking some action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such instructions or suggestions have been, issued, and I do not consider it necessary to take any action in the matter.

EVICTION, WORCESTER (W. O. WYATT).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 91.
asked the Minister of Health who was responsible for having turned out of his house in Worcester, Christopher Wyatt, who was found dead in Perry Wood, near Worcester, after some weeks of living exposed to the snow and rain, and who was declared by the coroner to have died of starvation accelerated by exposure, and why, if the house he had been living in was condemned, provision was not made for alternative accommodation for him when he was forced to leave it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information in regard to the matter referred to by the right hon. Member, but I will have inquiries made.

OPEN SPACES, LONDON.

Mr. SMITHERS: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain open spaces in London are being handed over to the builder; and will he consider what steps he can take in the interest of the community to prevent the usurpation of light and air which is thus caused?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information on the subject. I should have no authority to intervene in the matter, though I understand that the London County Council or the Metropolitan Borough Councils concerned have the power, if they think fit to exercise it, to acquire land of the kind mentioned, by agreement. It is also reported that the London County Council have decided to prepare a town planning scheme for land including certain of the London squares. I have not at present received notice of the scheme, which will, of course, require my approval.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Minister make special inquiry into the cases of the Foundling Hospital site and Morning-ton Crescent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I will with pleasure.

ANIMALS (SLAUGHTERING FOR FOOD).

Mr. RILEY: 96.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities which have already put into operation the Regulations or by-laws with regard to the slaughtering of animals for food; and if he can state whether the application of the by-law is increasing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume the hon. Member refers to the model by-law which provides for the use of a mechanical stunning instrument before slaughter. This by-law has been adopted, in whole or in part, by 190 local authorities. Fifty-seven of these were in the last 12 months.

BEDWELLTY UNION (SUPERINTENDENT RELIEVING OFFICER).

Major COHEN: 100.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a non-ex-service man has been appointed to the position of superintendent relieving
officer to the Bedwellty Union in spite of the fact that out of the four candidates who applied two at least were ex-service men, and that both of them had had longer Poor Law service than the man who was appointed; and whether this appointment was made with his approval?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I have communicated to the guardians complaints that an ex-service man should not have received this appointment, and the guardians, after considering the complaints, have informed me that they are satisfied that the selected candidate possessed the most suitable qualifications. It is of importance that this office should be revived in the union, and in all the circumstances I do not see my way to disapprove the appointment, but I will impress upon the guardians the desirability of filling, by the appointment of an ex-service man, the vacancy caused among the relieving officers by this appointment.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that notification general to boards of guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will make it general where the circumstances are similar.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SALARIES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 121.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will ascertain the number of persons in the Government service who are earning less than £2 a week; and whether he will specify in his reply if the salary paid is inclusive of bonus or not?

Mr. McNEILL: As indicated in the. reply given to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on the 21st December last, the material for answer to this question is not available, and could not be obtained without elaborate detailed investigation, the expense of which would not, I think, be justified.

WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH (INDOOR STAFF).

Mr. KELLY: 101.
asked the Minister of Health the present numbers in each
grade, of the indoor staff of the Welsh Board of Health, and the numbers in each grade who are fully conversant with and able to read, speak and write the Welsh language?

INDOOR STAFF—WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.


Grade.
Total Number.
No. fully conversant with and able to read, speak and write the Welsh language.


Members of the Board
…
…
…
4
3


Chief Accountant
…
…
…
1
1


Assistant Secretaries and Accountant
…
…
…
4
2


Medical Officers (Indoor)
…
…
…
3
2


Legal Adviser
…
…
…
1
—


Higher Executive Officers
…
…
…
12
7


Junior Executive Officers
…
…
…
12
2


Higher Grade Clerks
…
…
…
14
4


Clerks
…
…
…
164
24


Writing Assistants
…
…
…
30
—


Typing Staff
…
…
…
14
5


Messengers
…
…
…
15
2






274
52

ESTATE DUTY (INVENTORIES).

Mr. J. B. COUPER: 110.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as a means of ensuring full payment of Death Duties, he will consider the advisability of introducing into England and Wales the system which exists in Scotland of requiring the attachment of inventories of estates to grants of probate or confirmation of the estate of a deceased person, so that in the event of subsequent estate transpiring it will be incumbent upon his executor to lodge an inventory of the estate omitted in the original inventory upon which additional Estate Duty will become exigible?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend is one which I will carefully consider in connection with any proposals for improving the machinery for the collection of Estate Duty.

KENT COALFIELD (TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEE).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 112.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when the recent Treasury guarantees were given for the development of the Kent coalfield, any agreement was made with the firm concerned as a

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

result of which the welfare of the workers or State participation in the profits would be secured?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer is in the negative.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT INSTITUTIONS (FUNDS).

Mr. RUNCIMAN: 114.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the funds held by friendly and other registered industrial and provident institutions in the United Kingdom or Great Britain at the latest date for which data is available?

Mr. CHURCHILL: At 31st December, 1923, the latest date at which data are available, the figures for England, Wales and Scotland were, for societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act, £108,807,255, and for industrial and provident societies £130,890,778.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any possibility of stopping the thief who is going to raid some of these funds?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to let us have more recent figures than for 1923?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know, Sir.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. THURTLE: 117.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to avoid loss of revenue, he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary to have the interest credited by banks in respect of bank balances taxed at source?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter to which the hon. Member refers involves a number of important and difficult considerations, but the hon. Member may rest assured that all possible methods of evading liability to Income Tax are being constantly watched.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable loss owing to this fact?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is a considerable loss, but there may be some loss.

Mr. THURTLE: 118.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when any public or private firm writes up the value of its fixed assets as a result of a revaluation, he is prepared to treat the amount by which the assets are thus written up as income, and therefore liable to Income Tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, which would involve a departure from an established principle of the Income Tax, namely, that neither gains nor losses of capital can be taken into account in the computation of income for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in cases of this sort an issue of bonus shares frequently follows, and may not that issue of bonus shares be legitimately regarded as income?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If you take gains into consideration, surely you would have to take losses also into consideration. When heavy losses are sustained, as they frequently are, large concerns write down capital values, and if we were to have to make repayments of Income Tax in those cases, we should be the losers on the whole.

WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

122. Mr. HORE-BELISHA: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the
amount of money raised for war loan certificates by the formation of war savings associations; the cost per annum of the special external staff, commissioners and assistant commissioners, of the War Savings Committee who are responsible for pushing the formation of these associations; and the cost per certificate disposed of by their efforts?

Mr. McNEILL: It is not possible to state what proportion of the total sum of £595,000,000 raised by savings certificates has been subscribed through the medium of savings associations. The present annual cost of the external staff of the National Savings Committee, including travelling and office expenses, is approximately £36,000. I am satisfied that the work of these officers, which is by no means confined to the formation of associations, greatly contributes to the encouragement of thrift throughout the country.

OLD AGE PENSIONS (OVERPAYMENTS, PORTSMOUTH).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 123.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amounts now recorded as due on account of Old Age Pensions from C. W. Bowen, aged 80, and Mr. and Mrs. Weeks, aged 84 and 79, of Portsmouth, and if any of this recorded debt can be remitted?

Mr. McNEILL: The amounts recorded as outstanding on 6th March in respect of Old Age Pension money overpaid in the cases to which my hon. Friend refers were as follow:





£
s.
d.


Mr. C. W. Bowen
…
…
53
15
0


Mr. W. Weeks
…
…
11
5
0


Mrs. Weeks
…
…
5
10
0


The cases of these pensioners have been very carefully reviewed, and, having regard to the circumstances in which the overpayments were incurred, I cannot sanction any remission of the amounts still outstanding.

Sir B. FALLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is really a charge of fraud against these old people, and does he not think that in a case of fraud the people should be brought before the Court, so that the truth or justice of the accusation can be proved?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir; certainly that would be done if a charge of fraud were made.

Sir B. FALLE: Why is the money stopped if there is no fraud? Does not my right hon. Friend find that a dilemma?

AIR MAILS COMMITTEE.

Viscount SANDON: 132.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether since its Interim Report in 1924 any final Report has been published of the Air Mails Committee, under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport; and, if not, when it is to be expected?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Philip Sassoon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I am not in a position to state when sufficient material will have been collected to warrant the issue of a further Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARDS AND PRIVATE FIRMS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 138.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much money has been spent on private firms out of the Navy Estimates; and how much in His Majesty's dockyards for comparable work in the years 1923 and 1924, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The approximate amounts expended in the dockyards for shipbuilding and repairs were £8,948,000 for 1923 and £10,573,000 for 1924, as against the amounts paid to private firms for comparable work of £2,697,000 and £3,351,000. The amounts expended in the dockyards, however, include the sums of £2,750,000 and £3,420,000 for materials, machinery, gun mountings, etc., originally purchased from contractors.

SINGAPORE DOCK (LABOUR).

Mr. KELLY: 139 and 140.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) at what date the Government commenced to recruit native labour for the construction of the Singapore Dock; and through what agencies and in what countries was the recruitment conducted;
(2) whether the Admiralty bears the cost of recruitment and transport for labourers imported from India or elsewhere in connection with the construction of the Singapore Dock; if so, under what heading in the Navy Estimates does the charge appear; and what amount has been and will be thus spent in each of the last three financial years and in 1926–27?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No recruitment of labourers from India is undertaken by the Admiralty. The only men sent to Singapore at the direct cost of the Admiralty are those sent from England. The rest are engaged in the Colony. But under an Ordinance of the Straits Settlements Government the Admiralty, like other employers, have to contribute to the expenses of the immigration authorities, and the expenditure so incurred is provided for in Vote 10, Sub-head B, of the Navy Estimates under the Singapore Item. I could not reply to the last part of the question without inquiry from Singapore.

Mr. KELLY: Do those people who engage labour for their rubber and tea plantations in that Colony pay the expenses of those who are recruited for Admiralty purposes?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I must have notice of that question.

BUILDING SOCIETIES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 124.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the amount of the capital and deposits of the building societies of the United Kingdom or Great Britain at the latest date for which data are available?

Mr. McNEILL: At 31st December, 1924, the latest date at which data are available, the figures for England, Wales and Scotland were £108,933,304 due to shareholders and £24,486,714 due to depositors.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOREIGN MALTING BARLEY.

Colonel APPLIN: 126.
asked the Minister of Agriculture for What reasons the Government have been unable to accept the suggested assistance to British farmers of a tax on imported foreign malting barley?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I regret that I cannot add anything to the statement in the White Paper on Agricultural Policy which was issued at the beginning of the Session.

Mr. HURD: Has not the Minister, as a matter of fact, made a detailed statement on this subject in the country? Will he make it in the House of Commons?

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Mr. FORREST: 128.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of additional men actually engaged in connection with the sugar-beet industry; and whether the total indicates an addition of one manner 10 acres, as anticipated in the preliminary statements on the effect of the sugar subsidy?

Mr. GUINNESS: Approximately 4,700 persons were employed in the production of sugar in the sugar-beet factories in Great Britain during the 1925–1926 manufacturing season, in addition to which over 6,000 persons found employment during 1926 in the erection of, and extensions to, beet-sugar factories. A certain number were also employed in the manufacture of machinery for the factories. No definite estimate can be made of the total additional number of workers employed by growers in the cultivation of sugar beet, but I am trying to obtain some information on the subject.

Mr. FORREST: 129.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, taking the different counties in which the sugar-beet industry is being organised, he can state the amount in each case paid to the farmers per ton of sugar beet supplied; and whether any representations have reached him, and, if so, of what nature, as to the inadequacy of the payment?

Mr. GUINNESS: As stated in my reply on 22nd February to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, the price paid to farmers for their beet is based on a sliding scale according to the average sale price of sugar produced by each factory, with an overriding minimum in the case of a contract for more than one year of 54s. per ton delivered factory for beets of 15½ per cent. sugar content, except that for last year only the minimum price was 49s. for new factories. In the case of a one-year
contract, the statutory minimum of 44s. was paid. As in every case the price calculated on the average sale price of sugar has been less than the guaranteed minimum price, the farmers have been paid by every factory on the basis of 54s., 49s. or 44s. per ton respectively. I am not aware of any representations as to the inadequacy of these prices, which have been arrived at after negotiations between the factory companies and the National Farmers' Union.

LONDON CENTRAL UNEMPLOYED BODY.

Mr. HARRIS: 130.
asked the Minister of Labour how often last year the London Central Unemployed Body met; how many officials it employs; what was its revenue and expenditure; and what schemes it initiated to relieve unemployment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The Central Body met on one occasion last year. In addition the Executive and Standing Committees met on 22 occasions. Five officials ranking as such are employed in London and at Hollesley Bay Farm Colony, while, including foremen and gangers, permanent employment is afforded on the Farm Colony to 114 farm and garden and works departments hands. An additional house staff—to the number of 12—are temporarily employed in duties in connection with the accommodation of the London unemployed men at the Colony. The revenue for the past year amounted to £36,628 19s. 3d.; of which £36,415 is in respect of revenue from farm and garden sales and other receipts in respect of Hollesley Bay Farm Colony. The expenditure amounted to £42,286 7s. 10d., of which £40,114 is expenditure in respect of the Farm Colony and £2,172 in respect of establishment charges. The excess expenditure over revenue was made good from balances amounting to £5,862 brought forward from the previous year. Since the policy was adopted of making direct grants towards the cost of provision of work to local authorities and not through the Central Body the provision of work by the Central Body has been
confined to the promotion of adequate training and employment in connection with the existing activities carried on at Hollesley Bay Farm Colony. During the present year, in addition to the permanent and other employés referred to, employment at the Farm Colony has been provided for 933 London men for varying periods, representing in the aggregate 16,700 weeks' work.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. SNOWDEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the expected visit of the French Finance Minister to London to complete the debt settlement has been postponed, and whether the proposals agreed to in principle with M. Caillaux are to be regarded as open indefinitely?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As hon. Members are aware, a new French Government has now been formed, in which M. Raoul Peret is Minister of Finance. I am taking steps to resume, as soon as possible, the negotiations which have so many times been interrupted. His Majesty's Government regard the Agreement made with M. Caillaux in August last as binding on both parties, and I do not propose to withdraw the offer then made.
I take this opportunity, however, of pointing out that the interest accruing on the French debt to this country amounts to approximately £30,000,000 sterling per annum, and that this sum is provided by the issue to us, as it arises, of additional French Treasury Bills, which augment continually the total of the debt. The situation is, therefore, one of serious and increasing difficulty; and it is indispensable that the various outstanding points should be adjusted, and that the Agreement should be fully completed within a reasonable time.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to assume that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of modifying the arrangement made last year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my answer covers very fully the whole of the points raised in the question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent any communication to M. Peret since the new Government has been formed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government was only formed, I believe, yesterday morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT).

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any communication to make as to how he proposes to deal with the Coal Commission Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, except to say I have asked the members of the Cabinet to examine with the greatest care and sense of responsibility the Report, which has only been issued this morning, with a view to arriving, by study, at definite conclusions with regard to the numerous questions in which Government action is involved. I very much hope all parties concerned will study the Report, and weigh the evidence and the conclusions, and avoid commitments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister say what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, and we shall consider Votes A, 1, 10, 13, 14 and 15 in Committee.
Tuesday: Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Second Reading.
Wednesday: Civil Services Vote on Account, Committee stage. A Debate will take place on the Ministry of Labour Vote.
Thursday: Civil Services Vote on Account, Report stage. We do not know what particular Vote will be taken on that day.
It will be necessary during the week to take the Third Reading of two Bills which have recently been before the House, the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, and the Trade Facilities Bill.

Mr. MacDONALD: In regard to Tuesday's business, the Second Reading of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, is it the intention of the Government to restrict that Bill to one day's Debate?
Seeing that the Bill raises at least four very important subjects, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Second Reading ought to be spread over more than Tuesday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is a perfectly fair question. The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman says, raises three or four very definite and distinct questions, in watertight compartments. It was in my mind that these questions could be debated better in Committee than on Second Reading, but I am prepared, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that there should be more time, to consider the matter, if he will communicate with me through the usual channels.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: Will the Committee stage of this Bill be taken in Committee of the whole House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it is obliged to be taken in Committee of the whole House.

Colonel GRETTON: In regard to the Electricity Bill, Second Reading, will the Prime Minister have regard to the complexity and importance of the matters raised in that Bill, and give ample time for consideration, before the Second Reading is taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not been able to fix a date yet for the Electricity Bill, but I hope to take the Second Reading before we rise, on the ground that I think there will be so much matter in the Bill to be discussed, that I regard it of primary importance to get it to Committee at a time of the year when there will be ample time to discuss its contents.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 116.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Chapman, Sir S.
Gee, Captain R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Astor, Viscountess
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gower, Sir Robert


Atkinson, C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grant, J. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Barriay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gretton, Colonel John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grotrian, H. Brent


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Bennett, A. J.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Berry, Sir George
Cope, Major William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Couper, J. B.
Hanbury, C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harland, A.


Blundell, F. N.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Haslam, Henry C.


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hawke, John Anthony


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brings. J. Harold
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brlttaln, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dixey, A. C.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Broun-Llndsay, Major H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'Pd., Hexham)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hilton, Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Elveden, Viscount
Holland, Sir Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Homan, C. W. J.


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fanshawe. Commander G. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whlteh'n)


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cassels, J. D.
Forrest, W.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Jephcott, A. R.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pennefather, Sir John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Penny, Frederick George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Perring, Sir William George
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Philipson, Mabel
Templeton, W. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Plelou, D. P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tinne, J. A.


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Looker, Herbert William
Raine, W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lougher, L.
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remnant, Sir James
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lumley, L. R.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macintyre, Ian
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)
Watts, Dr. T.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Malone, Major P. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sandon, Lord
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Murchison, C. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exster)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley,Col.Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackindar, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Warne, G. H.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Giliett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E)


Groves, T.
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Purcell, A. A.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Riley, Ben



Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Montrose Bridge Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Chosen Syndicate, Limited, to reorganise and increase its capital and to provide for the cancellation of its 'B' shares and to issue fully-paid shares in exchange for the same; and for other purposes." [Chosen Syndicate Bill [Lords.]

CHOSEN SYNDICATE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir James Agg-Gardner, Major Harvey, and Captain Austin Hudson; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Cazalet, Mr. Charles Williams, and Mr. Crompton Wood.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Adoption of Children Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Attlee, Sir Leonard Brassey, Sir Geoffrey Butler, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Mr. Galbraith, Captain Hacking, Lieut.-
Colonel Headlam, Mr. Hurst, Mr. John, Mr. A. R. Kennedy, Mr. Lawson, Sir Malcolm Macnaughten, Mr. Meller, Sir Robert Newman, Sir John Pennefather, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mrs. Philipson, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Russell, Sir Henry Slesser, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Miss Wilkinson.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-four Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Births and Deaths Registration Bill and the Midwives and Maternity Homes Bill): Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Lieut-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Grace, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Groves, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Major Hills, Mr. Looker, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Major-General Sir Richard Luce, Captain Macmillan, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir John Power, Mr. Radford, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Wells, Mr. John Williams, Sir Kingsley Wood, and Mr. Wragg; and (in respect of the Births and Deaths Registration Bill only) Sir Henry Slesser; and (in respect of the Midwives and Maternity Homes Bill only) Mr Viant.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

Order for Committee read.

MR. BRIDGEMAN'S STATEMENT.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
4.0 P.M.
This time last year when we were discussing the Estimates we were unfortunate, because we were not able to discuss the whole of the picture at the same time. We were deprived, then, of the opportunity of discussing new construction, and we were only able to do that at the end of July. I am very glad this year to think that we shall be able to go over the whole field and to include both maintenance and constructional expenditure. I think the task is very much simplified by the fact that in the Debate of July last year the House gave its approval to a building programme extending over a considerable number of years. That, as I hope to be able to show later on, has made it very much easier to effect the economies which I shall be able to show to the House this afternoon have been effected. I think they would have been impossible without that settled programme having been decided upon and relied upon. In July last year the Admiralty undertook to find savings equivalent to the amount on new construction which would fall in the financial year 1925 and that we have accomplished. They also undertook that they would go as far as they could to effect savings which would counter-balance the extra cost of the new construction programme in the year 1926, and in that they have not only fulfilled their undertaking but have much more than fulfilled it. In the course of that Debate of 29th July, we had the advantage of listening to speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Churchill) and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). My right hon. Friend said:
I cannot hold out the hope of large net savings on the amount of Naval Estimates. I hope that that may be possible,
but I am not going to deceive the House, I hope, and I confidently expect, that the diminutions which will be effected by interior economies in the Navy may enable the Estimates to remain at the present actual figure.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1925; col. 488; Vol. 187.]
The right hon. Gentleman spoke, perhaps, with almost more than his usual caution, and did not place his hopes too high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, however, had no hope at all. He said:
Nobody who has had any experience at all at the Admiralty will place the slightest reliance on the pledges they are giving to effect economy. They are the most arrogant of all the public Departments. … There is no other Department which has so little regard to the ordinary conventions and amenities of the public service as the Admiralty.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1925; col. 563, Vol. 187.]
So the right hon. Gentleman had no hopes at all. How ridiculously false his prophecies have proved will be seen by the figures I am able to produce this afternoon. These arrogant admirals and civilians have not only been as good as their word, as anybody less prejudiced than the right hon. Gentleman would have expected, but they have actually effected economies nearly double those they undertook. The Estimates to-day, in spite of the extra cost of the new building programme, are actually nearly £2,500,000 below those of last year. These reductions, which, I think, will compare very favourably with those of any other Department, have, in fact, been achieved by those who, according to the right hon. Gentleman, have less regard to the interests of the public service than anybody else. I shall look with the greatest interest to see how far the economies of the other very considerate Departments who have so much regard to the interests of the public service and the amenities of life generally exceed those which the Admiralty have been able to effect.
The total Estimate last year was £60,500,000. That was after a deduction had been made representing the amount of money that was thought likely to be not spent in the year owing to the retardation of contract and other work which is usually experienced. The money thus deducted would have to be voted later on in Supplementary Estimates, if the progress of such works had been more
rapid. This year we have made the same deduction, and the figure this year, instead of being £60,500,000, is £58,100,000, showing a net reduction of £2,400,000 on last year's Estimate. Therefore, not only have we provided for the new construction in 1926, laid down in the programme of July, which amounts to £2,908,000, but we have made additional economies of over £2,000,000. This is an achievement which I think could not have been accomplished without the most determined and sustained effort by those who are very much interested in the public service and the amenities connected with it, as I think will be admitted by everybody in this House, and I can assure the House that, after the undertaking given last year, the Board of Admiralty sat down to study most determinedly and most continuously all the possibilities of saving that appeared to be in view.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They said that in previous years.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to try to explain as briefly as I can the principal items of saving. I said earlier that the effect of having a settled building programme was to make it much easier to save. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year laid great stress upon that, and very properly so. I think he was rather more far-sighted in the matter than I was. I did not realise until I sat down to work on these savings what an enormous difference it made having a fixed programme and knowing where you were going to be not only one year but four years hence, and I say quite plainly that the great majority of these economies would not have been possible without that fixed programme. If you know what replacements to expect in the next five years, it is very much easier to make economical arrangements with regard to your existing Fleet and to take risks which otherwise would not be justified, whereas if you are living in a state of uncertainty as to new ships to be built, you cannot risk getting rid of ships which you have, not knowing what you may get in the future. You must retain old ships whose usefulness is well nigh past; and you must not only retain them, but you must spend money on refitting and retubing them which is really not justified by their fighting
value. Thus you save not only by scrapping ships which otherwise would have' to be retained, but you save in dockyard work and also in personnel.
This fixed programme has also enabled us to have a more accurate and assured review of the consumption which will be necessary in fuel, armaments, and other equipment. It has this further great advantage that the shipbuilding and armament firms have an opportunity of knowing the probable extent of future Admiralty orders, and there is a consequent gain very often in prices to the Admiralty as a result. The Government felt that the generally peaceful outlook justified a reduction in the amount of oil fuel placed to reserve and in the number of Fleet aircraft held in reserve. As progress is made in the manufacture of new models and as new inventions supersede and outclass old ones, there is always some danger of overstocking your reserves in machinery of that kind. The numbers required on Vote A, if we had not gone very carefully through the whole question of manning the Fleet, would on the previous scale have been several thousands up on last year. As it is, owing to the economies and the review, the very careful review which has been made, we are able to present figures in Vote A which are practically the same as last year. On the other hand there is an automatic increase in expenditure which we have been quite unable to avoid. We have no control over the non-effective vote, the increase of salaries, which are automatic, the contributions to the new Pensions Act, and there are smaller surplus stocks to draw on. All these automatic increases have been set off by the savings we have made in other directions.
I want to say a few words about the staff at the Admiralty. It has been the subject of a good deal of criticism here and in the Press and elsewhere. We have been able to make a reduction, not a large reduction, of 162 in the number of the staff; not in the technical staff, but in the other staff. It is well that I should give the figures. The pre-War staff of the Admiralty was 2,072, at the end of the War it was 10,637, and now it is 3,182. It is often said that because you have a smaller Fleet therefore your staff can be reduced accordingly, and a question was put to me by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr.
Bennett) towards the end of last year which I answered at considerable length on 18th November. I then gave the reasons why a greater decrease of staff seemed to me to be impossible. One reason is, that immediately before the War the Admiralty staff was clearly very inadequate in numbers and very much overworked. If you will look at the hours worked by some of the higher officials in the Admiralty at that time you will realise that it is owing to their great sense of public duty that they carried on as they did for 12 and 15 hours a day. Therefore, one reason which makes the increase in staff look greater than it otherwise should is that the Admiralty was certainly understaffed at that time.
It was understaffed on the naval side; and if the General Naval Staff, which was of the greatest use, had existed before the War, a great deal of trouble as regards mines, torpedoes, and so on, would have been avoided. It was necessary to establish the General Naval Staff, and it would be folly now to disband it. There is more reason now, owing to the great increase in technical work, in ship construction, and of all weapons of offence and defence, for a highly qualified technical staff at headquarters. And I do not think it is at all excessive if you compare it with the headquarters staff of other Departments. The third reason, which nobody naturally would realise, is that an enormous number of new duties have been put upon the Admiralty which did not exist before, many of them by Acts of Parliament. I can enumerate four of five Acts of Parliament which have imposed considerable extra work on the staff at the Admiralty. There is the Pensions Increase Act, the extension of the Act by which the principle of commutation is extended to seamen's pensions, the Injuries in War Compensation Act, Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Act, the Representation of the People Act, which deals with the absent voters in the Navy, and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Those are five Acts which have imposed fresh duties on the Admiralty, and it cannot undertake fresh duties without having a fresh staff of some kind to deal with them.
But beyond that there are other alterations which have added to the work. There is the revision of salaries on the cost of living basis which is constantly
taking place—a great number of calculations have to be made. There is the system now of paying officers weekly instead of monthly, which adds to the necessity for a larger staff, and the marriage allowance to petty officers and men, which again requires additional work. There is also the accountancy department, which adds a certain number to the staff, but it has certainly proved its value in the savings it has made. It must be remembered also that pensions are now paid to 83,000 people; previously they were paid to 56,000 people, and in answer to a question I pointed out that in one year alone the accountants succeeded in reducing the claims by contractors on the Admiralty by £2,900,000, which is more than twice the cost of the whole Admiralty staff. No one would wish to reduce them. There are two other matters which have temporarily added to the staff. They are the questions of prize money and War medals, but they will soon be worked off. There is another consideration which I think the House must bear in mind, and that is the increased complexity of the equipment, which requires a technical staff—a great deal of inspection and exceptional accuracy is of the utmost importance. It includes work on anti-submarines, antiaircraft, wireless telephony, fire control, extension of electricity, and so on, all of which has been enormously extended in the ship of the present day as compared with the pre-War vessel. I am told that the present light cruiser has more miles of electric wire than the old battleship, and the different items in the stores amount to 76,000 to-day as against 33,000 pre-War. These are very largely spare parts, new machinery, new tools, and other requisites.
It is easy to see that it would have been quite impossible to do with the pre-War staff all this extra work which has been put on the Admiralty. The increase in the numbers on the staff to-day as compared with 1914 is 53½ cent., and I think it compares very favourably with other Departments. I want to say this because it is only fair to the staff that people should understand what they have to do. It is easy to say that the numbers have increased, that you should do away with some of them, or that they should work harder; but if you go into the question as I have done you will understand the immense amount of extra work that
is required of them now. I think it is only just to them that everybody should realise this. With regard to some of the more important savings I should like to begin with the Fleet Air Arm. We show a saving of £639,000 this year, but the whole of that is not a real saving, some of it is a postponement.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is the key of the whole thing.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am always honest with the House, and I am pointing out that £250,000 of this amount is a postponement of certain flights aeroplanes. The reason for it is that the carriers for which they are intended will not be finished quite as soon as was expected. It goes over to the next financial year. All the rest of the saving is accomplished almost entirely by a reduction in the number of reserve aircraft and engines kept for the Fleet Air Arm. Now I hope it will not be imagined that £681,000 is all that is spent by the Navy on its air service. In addition, there is about £2,500,000 to be spent on naval air work in 1926. There are now 45 naval officers serving as observers and nine in training; 69 naval marine officers at sea serving as pilots, 42 under training and 410 naval ratings in the Naval Air Service. There we have a reduction of £639,000, of which the larger part is savings and the smaller part postponement. There is also a saving resulting from the scrapping of ships, and as the number scrapped is given in the White Paper—I need not take up the time of the House in dilating upon that, except perhaps I may say a word about the three cruisers which are to be disposed of and which are also mentioned in the White Paper. These three cruisers will be all over 20 years of age by the time the five years' programme is completed, and in view of the financial considerations involved we thought it advisable not to spend the large sum which it would be necessary to spend in repairs in order to keep them efficient for that period. With regard to the other smaller ships which are being scrapped, the same thing applies in a lesser degree.
As to the reduction on Rosyth and Pembroke, it received the approval of the House last Session, and I need not do more than remind the House that at that time I explained that there would be
no substantial economy derived from that reduction in the year 1926 but we expected substantial economies from it in the future. It has been decided that no alterations or additions are to be carried out, except on the special recommendation of the Naval Staff, on any ship which has passed three-quarters of her normal life, and no repairs are to be carried out within one year of the end of her life except such as are necessary to enable her to continue on the service on which she happens to be engaged at the moment. In that way there is some economy in repairs.
There have been suggestions made that the savings which we are proposing effect an enormous reduction in the efficiency of the Fleet as compared with last year, in ships, fuel and ammunition. It is quite true that we have had to carry out economies which do affect to a certain extent the Fleet efficiency and the preparedness of the Fleet. You cannot have economies of this size without taking some risks. It would be no use attempting to deny that we have taken some risks which we certainly would not have taken in tunes of danger or when the country was more affluent. But the risks taken have been taken in items which least affect efficiency and which could be most readily replaced if there was any danger in view.
With regard to oil fuel, the saving is £1,291,200. This is made up as follows: A reduction in the allocation to reserve, £615,000; the saving of oil fuel used in shore establishments, £96,000; a saving in not having the larger manœuvres or the Reserve Fleet exercises this year, of £41,000. Last year money was voted for these exercises but they did not take place. Therefore, a saving is shown this year, but there is no change so far as this year is concerned. The result of paying off older ships and withdrawing a few from the Mediterranean to the home station effects another economy of £216,000, and the reduction in prices saved us £323,000. Therefore, it will be seen that no essential operation of the Fleet has been interfered with by these savings in oil. There is no reduction in the steaming allowance for the ships which are in full commission. As far as ammunition goes, there has been a reduction in the amount allowed for practice in those exercises which have appeared to my advisers to be the least important
and to give the least valuable results. Against that there is a slight increase in some of the more practical and realistic exercises.
The main reduction is due to lesser requirements for ships that are near the time of completion. The "Nelson" and "Rodney" have already been mainly provided for, and therefore there is less provided in that way than last year. With regard to ships on the effective list there is no reduction in battleships, battle-cruisers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, monitors, minelayers and flotilla leaders, but a reduction in the older destroyers, depot ships, one repair ship, a few submarines and one sloop, and possibly, though we have not yet decided the matter, there will be a reduction in mine-sweepers. That, I think, shows that the reductions which have been made have been made in those directions where the least risk is incurred and where the deficit could be made up very quickly if we thought it necessary to do so.
I would like to say a few words about the events of the year just past. They have not been highly exciting events for the British Navy, but there has been—

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Not enough war?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By "not very exciting" I mean not very exciting for me to make an interesting speech now. I do not mean "exciting" so much for the people who were concerned, but not sufficiently exciting to make my speech as interesting or as easy to attack as the hon. Member opposite would wish. One interesting thing is that we have gone on with the exchange of ships with the Royal Australian Navy. For the first time this year a captain of the Royal Australian Navy has been appointed as Commodore Commanding His Majesty's Australian Fleet. We are all very delighted to know of that, and we are sure that the relations between the Australian Fleet and our own will be maintained in a most friendly and satisfactory manner. It has been a great source of satisfaction to the Admiralty to have had some part in assisting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to extend his great and beneficient influence in West Africa, South Africa, and in the States of South America. During the past year the presence of His Majesty's ships on
the China Station has done something, I think, to add to the feeling of security of British subjects in that part of the world.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Are you sending any more out?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is one interesting point to which I would like to refer, and that is that the "Vindictive" is proceeding to China, and she is the first cruiser which is carrying a catapult for launching aeroplanes.

Commander BELLAIRS: The first British cruiser.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not introducing the United States Navy Estimates. There is another thing to which I attach the greatest importance, and that is the research work now being done by the Admiralty staff. Very considerable and most satisfactory progress has been made in the solution of anti-aircraft problems and anti-submarine problems, in fire control, tactical and navigational instruments, and in the manufacture of a more uniform and practical type of explosives. We have a remarkably keen staff, which is in touch with the research of other Departments, and has been assisted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research where there is common ground between military and industrial requirements. I think we may claim that our investigations into such things as echo depth soundings, radio acoustics, position finding for ships, improvements in magnetic and gyro compasses and wireless apparatus, can be cited as instances in which our work has been beneficial not only for military but mercantile purposes. For example, a surveying vessel has carried out soundings in 200 fathoms continuously without slackening her speed, and instantaneous response has been given to our experimental gear at a depth of not less than 2,700 fathoms. That alone shows that it is a device which must be of very great value to the Mercantile Marine as well as to the Royal Navy. I am glad to say that no reductions have been made in the fund provided for research. I believe that the diligent pursuit of research not only repays its cost by enormously increasing the efficiency of our apparatus, but also by introducing labour-saving appliances and simplifying mechanical contrivances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: According to the Estimates there is a reduction in Vote 6 for "Scientific Services" of over £3,000, and in the details of the mechanical Research Department there is a reduction.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that my statement is correct, as the decrease is due to larger appropriations in aid.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On page 95, which is a most important Vote, the actual money voted for research and experiment is less, and the number of officers available has been reduced. It is down compared with last year by a substantial amount.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I had better leave that detailed question to be answered later by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am certain that. I am right in saying that, whatever reduction has been made, it has been a very small one, and does not affect the scientific part of the work that we have to do. I shall be very sorry if any further reduction should be required.
With regard to Singapore, the situation is simalar to that for the year 1925. We are proceeding with the work necessary for berthing the new floating dock, and making preliminary investigations connected with the larger scheme for a new base. As the floating dock approaches completion the Government will decide the extent and rate of progress and the date of completion of the further scheme for a graving dock. We shall have the advantage of consultation with representatives of the Dominions at the forthcoming Imperial Conference.
The cost for 1926 for the work there will be £225,000, of which only £95,000 will fall upon this country. The remainder will be found by what was left of Hong Kong's very generous contribution of £250,000 last year. £130,000 remains to be spent in the coming year. Last year we intended to use the old German floating dock for Singapore. We have one at Malta, and our experience in taking it out to Malta, although the dock was, I am glad to say, successfully taken there, was such as to make us feel that it was not safe to risk taking a large floating dock as far as Singapore. Therefore we propose to dispose of that
German dock and to construct a new one, which will be taken out and put up in the safest way that we can devise. That, of course, will add slightly to the cost of construction, but that has been set off by other reductions in the new programme of building, and therefore it does not swell the total for the year 1926.
There is another interesting event which has taken place, and that is that it has just recently been decided to reconstruct the Royal Indian Marine as a combatant force. India is thus entering upon the first stage of naval development with a view to taking a part in her own naval defence. The Indian Fleet will consist of four sloops, two patrol craft vessels, four trawlers and two survey ships, together with one depot ship. Its functions will be to train personnel for service in war; Indian Government service in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf; the re-organisation of defences at ports under the Indian Government's control; survey work in the Indian Ocean, and marine transport work for the Government of India. India will still continue to contribute £100,000 a year towards the expenses of certain ships of the Royal Navy in Indian waters. I think we all would like to congratulate the Indian Navy, to wish them well and to express the hope that they may advance in skill and efficiency as time goes on.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Why is it called the Indian Navy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Because it has been started by the Indian Government.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Did the Indian people ask for it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that arises on my Estimate. My connection with India is that they pay me £100,000 a year towards the cost of the ships which we provide.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: You take it from the people, of India. The people of India do not want the Navy.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that I will argue that question with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: You cannot.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps it will be interesting to the House to know some of the other contributions which we have received from different parts of the
Empire. The Straits Settlements have offered to pay for the site of the new dock at Singapore. That is worth £146,000. As I have said, Hong Kong contributed £250,000 towards the cost of the dock. The Australian Naval Estimates for 1925–26 are £2,421,000, and, in addition, they are providing in that year £1,500,000 towards the construction of two new cruisers and two new submarines. The New Zealand Navy Estimates and charges for naval purposes amounted to over £500,000; Canada's £280,000, and South Africa's £140,000. While saying we are very grateful to those who have been generously making contributions, we might also say that we would be very glad if in some directions these contributions could be increased. There is only one other figure I want to give to the House with regard to present-day expenditure. The figure of £58,100,000, which I have given as the Estimate for this year, would, if stated in pre-War value of money, only amount to £34,712,000, and that will compare with an expenditure of £51,000,000 in the year 1914, so that, judged by pre-War values, the expenditure of the present day on the Navy cannot be regarded as extravagant.

Mr. SNOWDEN: There has been no war.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not comparing it with War Estimates. I am comparing it with the Estimates before there was a war, and when most hon. Gentlemen opposite said there never would be a war.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Nobody ever said that.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If you eliminate the non-effective services over which we have no control, the figure for 1914 would be £48,541,000, and the figure for this year, even on the present value of money, is only £49,880,000, or only about £1,000,000 more. But, judged by the pre-War rates of money value, the expenditure without non-effective services would only be £29,917,006, or a reduction of 38.36 per cent. as against 1914. I hope the House will appreciate the genuine efforts which the Admiralty have made to meet the demands of economy and to do something to save the taxpayers' pockets. I also hope they realise that we could not have gone further without taking risks which are too
serious to be taken. I hope, on the other hand, they will recognise that the reductions we have made are in those items which least affect the efficiency of the Fleet. In view of the peaceful political outlook, and the need for saving the taxpayers' pockets, we have searched in every direction to meet the demands of economy, and in some directions, as I have said, we have had to accept a lower degree of excellence than we could have agreed to, in more prosperous or less peaceful times.
Our policy has been to proceed steadily with the replacement of obsolete vessels by new vessels, built with all the knowledge which has been gained from the experiences of the War and the advance of science. It is a policy begun by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a very wise one. They laid down five cruisers, which I am glad to say will all have been launched by the end of this financial year. We are trying to keep it up. To adopt the words of the Leader of the Opposition—very picturesque words, which I always remember—we are not more prepared than he to "allow the British Navy to rot away from the bottom." Those are the words he used; they are very striking and very wise words, which we intend to follow. Owing to the geographical position of our Empire and the insular position of this country, we have made it our first object to proceed with the construction of cruisers for the protection of our trade. A few days ago the writer of some articles in the "Times," which I thought very interesting, pointed out that some people seemed to believe that the next war would be fought entirely in the air, that the Army and Navy were not likely to take any part in it, and that there was likely to be what the writer described as "a blow at the heart" delivered from the air. He very properly reminded his readers that, as far as this country was concerned, a blow at the stomach would be equally disastrous. Upon the Navy has been placed the duty of protecting the supplies of food and raw material which supply the human and industrial stomach of this country, and, at the present time, there is no other Service capable of so doing.
In these days progress is undoubtedly being made in the air, and with various forms of aircraft. Progress is also being made with anti-aircraft devices as well, and we in the Navy are doing what we
can to make ourselves efficient to meet new conditions. We are still very far from the time when the defence of our food and raw material cannot be entrusted solely to the Air Service. There is no certainty that this blow at the heart would reach its aim, but it is an absolute certainty that, if we had no naval defence, any country which had even a small naval force could deliver a series of staggering blows to our trade—on which depends the existence of this country. Therefore, it is my duty to ask the House of Commons to enable the Navy to go on fulfilling the duty which has been put upon it. I cannot conclude without saying how much I have been impressed during visits to the Mediterranean Fleet and our home ports, with the extraordinarily high standard which all ranks and branches of the Navy set themselves. In spite of reductions and the increased work cast upon those who remain, in spite of the congestion in promotion which is so discouraging, they still set themselves to attain a very high degree of efficiency, and they work day in and day out to achieve that goal. The House may feel confident that with new methods of construction and the old spirit and tradition of the Navy, we can still hold up our heads among the nations of the world.

Mr. AMNION: As the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, it is not easy to attack either his speech or himself on this occasion. One knows by experience that under a genial exterior and an assumed simplicity, the right hon. Gentleman has an amount of shrewdness and an ability in Debate not possessed by many others. I congratulate him on the manner in which he has presented his report, carefully sticking to the points of detail and avoiding many difficult matters of high policy about which the House would want to know a great deal more than he has told us. Before coming to any criticism, there is one point on which I am sure the House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever be our views as to policy or armaments, I am sure all hon. Members will join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to the ability and faithfulness of the staffs in the Admiralty, and the men on the high seas in the Navy itself. That one can always do. Under the mask of geniality it has been possible for the
right hon. Gentleman to charge my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) with being ridiculously false and arrogant in a statement he made last year.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I did not say so; the right hon. Gentleman accused us of being arrogant.

Mr. AMMON: Then, shall I say, with being ridiculously false in his charge of arrogance against the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Government, I do not think anybody else would have got away with that statement, without some protest from my right hon. Friend who, however, seemed to take it as something in the nature of a joke, and therefore did not think it worth while to protest. However, I think it is worth while to examine the policy of economy which has been presented to us by the right hon. Gentleman. We see in it what may be described as typical Tory economy. After all, there is very little economy here. It is simply the postponement to another day of bills which are bound to come in. All the right hon. Gentleman has done is to get certain reductions of liabilities by postponing obligations, and that simply means that while we may have a low budget on our construction programme this year, a pretty heavy Bill will be presented to us next year. It is worth while examining the line which has been taken with regard to economies arising since July, when the House met to consider ways and means of effecting savings to offset the new construction programme.
5.0 P.M
The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House—I am sure only because he was pressed for time—that a very large portion of this saving has been effected by the reduction of seamen's wages, by savings in regard to provisions and messing and by reductions in the amounts spent on seamen's clothing, soap, tobacco, and other things. He has not explained whether these savings have been effected by reductions in quality or in quantity. But the man who has been called upon to pay for a very large part of this reduction has been Jack at sea. These things have not been brought out, though set out both in the White Paper and in the Estimates themselves. I would like to have a little further information as to exactly what the right hon. Gen-
tleman means when he tells us about some different arrangements that have been made with regard to the dock at Singapore. Last year, when this Debate took place, I pressed the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether there was to be both a graving dock and a floating dock, and I was unable to get any answer. That question was again raised in July, but no answer was forthcoming, and now I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been any change of policy, and whether the graving dock is not to be abandoned, and, in addition, that there is to be a floating dock as well.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought I explained that the position was exactly the same as last year, but what I said was that we are proceeding with the floating dock, and that, as that drew near to completion, the Government would consider the rate of progress and the date of completion of the larger scheme, after they had had the opportunity, which they will have this autumn, of consulting the representatives of the Dominions in the Imperial Conference. The position is exactly the same as last year. The Government have not abandoned their intention in regard to the larger scheme, but they have not yet decided as to the date of completion or the rate of progress or the full extent of that scheme.

Mr. AMMON: May I press the point another way? Two years ago we were told that the line of policy would be, first of all, to establish the graving dock and then the floating dock. Now, why has he reversed that order?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I always said the floating dock first and the graving dock afterwards.

Mr. AMMON: That will be looked up during the Debate, and the right hon. Gentleman will be reminded of chapter and verse, as my memory is quite clear on that matter, that the graving dock was always said to be first, followed by the floating dock, and it was on that understanding that I pressed him last year to tell us whether or not the Government intended to carry out the two schemes. That question brings under review the whole question of the position at Singapore, and I make no apology for again raising the matter, because surely
there have been additional factors introduced into the controversy, if only by the signing of the Locarno Treaty. Surely that fact alone should make some difference in regard to our war preparations. Here we have the startling position that during the last four years we have spent no less than £1,000,000,000 on armaments, and that in a time of supposed peace after we are supposed to have fought the last war. The comparison that the right hon. Gentleman made a little while ago between 1914 and now must, after all, be considered in the light of the fact that we have had the War which was supposed to have ended war, and that we are budgeting now for relatively about the same amount as in 1908. Is it to be said, then, that the position in regard to war is the same now as it was in that year?
The point I want to urge is this: What is the policy of the Government, and what is the objective with regard to the Singapore scheme? Up to now the defence has been that it could not be against Japan, because they are so many thousand miles from Singapore. In fact, it has been said in illustration that they are as far removed from each other as is New York from this country, but everybody knows that plans of war are not always laid down from the point of view of striking at the particular country itself, but rather with a view to getting across their lines of communication or astride their food supplies. Therefore, we are acting in a way that is bound to set up suspicions and rivalries with other countries. That is, as I see it, the position which we are up against now, for Singapore is so placed that the development of that naval base cannot be construed, and is not construed by Japan as other than an unfriendy act towards that country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] What is the good of hon. and right hon. Members contradicting that? Again and again I, myself, and others have read statements made in responsible Japanese newspapers by responsible Japanese statesmen that they look upon this with disfavour and view it as a possible threat from this country.

Commander BELLAIRS: Why, then, did they acquiesce in it at the Washington Conference?

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) knows as well as I do that chapter and verse were given only last year for the statements made in the Japanese Parliament, where people voiced the suspicions that are in the Japanese mind with regard to this scheme at Singapore. What is the position? The Singapore base will put us in such a position as to be astride the food supply routes of both Japan and China. There was held an Indian Trade Inquiry in the years 1916–19 as to the position of the rice trade and the source of supply to Japan, India, China, and other countries in the East. In the course of that investigation the fact was brought out that there are two main sources of supply, namely, the Siam field and the Indo-China field, that certain of the more inferior qualities of rice go to Singapore, Hong Kong, and this country, and that the better qualities go to Hong Kong, the Philippines, Japan, Singapore, and France. Now, the position is that as we develop this scheme, and as certain parts of China and Japan become more and more highly industrialised, those countries, in spite of the huge supply of rice grown in China itself, will not grow enough to supply their own needs. They have to draw their supplies, the same as we do our wheat supplies, from overseas, and, as the Report of that inquiry says,
Rice is to the Chinese what wheat is to us, only more so.
Therefore, the suspicion is being aroused in the minds of some of those people that our action in Singapore is the longsighted view of people looking forward to future aggression with a view to cutting across their supplies of food whenever it may seem the fitting moment to declare hostilities against them. That point of view, I know, has not been brought before this House, but I am bringing it forward now, in view of this Report and of a certain amount of attention that I have given to the matter since it was raised here a little while ago. In times like this, when we are talking about Locarno Pacts, and when we had a discussion a little while ago in regard to giving greater authority to the League of Nations, is there not a good deal of humbug and nonsense talked about that sort of thing, when the right hon. Gentleman is here asking for sums of money to set up armed forts and arsenals and
docks in places where we have been able to do without them all along until this moment, and where, simply because now, by the development of the aeroplane, the Navy will not be as useful in narrow waters as in times past, there is evidently going to be an attempt to develop in the wide seas of the Pacific and Indian Oceans? It cannot do other than provoke the same feelings as those which operated in the North Sea between Germany and this country, which eventuated in the War of 1914.
With this sort of thing going on, and the lip service we are giving to peace, it puts me very much in mind of an incident that happened to me when, in my position as a Justice of the Peace on the Lunacy Commission, I visited one of the mental asylums, and in the course of the discussion one of the inmates said: "We are in here because you are in the majority outside." It seems that we are all acting as if we were in a huge lunatic asylum. While we are making professions of peace and endeavouring to get the nations to join together, we are doing all we can to provoke hostility, to upset that spirit, and to bring upon us a worse horror than we went through in 1914–18. It is worth noting that Japan's production of rice has failed by a long way to keep pace with her consumption, and that fact is agitating Japan in regard to our steps in Singapore. From 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of her rice imports come from British India and French Indo-China, and to a large extent rice is the staple diet of a large number of people in that district. The distance of Singapore, the cruiser base, is only 805 miles from Bangkok in Siam and 630 miles from Saigon in Indo-China, and from the rice distributing port of China, Hong Kong itself, it is 1,440 miles.
The position we are up against is that Japan, by the growth of industrialism, the same as in this country, is devoting less and less space to agriculture—and by the growth of industrialism in certain parts of China the same thing is happening there—and is more and more dependent on overseas for her rice supply, which is, in effect, her wheat supply, and that she sees, in the steps we are taking at Singapore, a menace to the future prosperity of her country and an attempt to get her at a disadvantage. I ask the House and the
country to consider what this means. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite may be quite clear that their own hearts and minds are pure in this matter, but history has shown us only too well that we are bound to go downhill once we start in this way, and that, in doing this, we are sowing the seeds of future war as surely as night follows day.
I want to ask why it is that the right hon. Gentleman has not given us a little more information as to what is meant by the development of the so-called Indian Navy and by the development of Trimcomalee, in India, where they are beginning again to fortify the place and to put into use forts that had become covered with grass and moss-grown. Evidently there is some great war activity or preparation for war going forward there. It is not long ago that in this House we were discussing the abolition of the Indian Marine, which was more or less being used for Customs and Excise purposes, but now, evidently, it is going to be used as an additional means of increasing our naval strength in those waters, and the House ought to have a fuller explanation of all the developments and plans that are in view there than it has yet had.
There is one other point on which I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given us some information. I see that on page 5 of the White Paper there is a reference to a patrol of the Tangier coast. I have in mind that some little time ago the leaders of the Riffs made application to this country whether they would be allowed to have Red Cross supplies going through to attend to their wounded and to the women and children who had been hurt by air bombardment. That was refused absolutely, and I may say, also, that the Riffs themselves have expressed their willingness to allow any such help to go through to the Spanish wounded, should it be necessary and called for. But we have been given to understand all along that we have no part in this quarrel. Is it to be understood that we are in the same war against the Riff leaders? If not, why are we blockading their coast? Why are we acting, in fact, as allies of France and Spain against the little country that is fighting in its own defence, and the right to rule its own people? And we are doing this without it being brought before this House, and without any declaration being
made that we are in a state of war or disagreement with them? The House is entitled, at any rate, to have some information. One does observe, and one must pay tribute to the good work which has been done by the Navy with regard to the slave traffic consistently for years in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. It has practically done the work of all the other nations of the world in this particular respect. While one may make criticisms with regard to policies, it is only fair that one should pay tribute to the good work the Navy is doing in this respect.
Having criticised to a certain extent what I call the broad general policy of the Admiralty, I want to come down to some matters of greater detail, to ask one or two questions, and make some suggestions that I think should operate in the future to secure better economy in the service without in any way impairing its efficiency. We understand that as a result of the development of the Air Force, the Navy is not so much responsible as in days gone by for the immediate defence of these shores, but the question has been asked again and again in this House in a number of Debates as to what is the position of command between the two Services, say, when you have a combined operation between seaplane and aircraft carriers. Who is going to be in command? Is it to be the Naval officer or the Air officer? Those questions ought to be determined, and not left until a time of emergency arises, and then find that we have not any clear and settled policy.
I do hope we are going to get an answer to this, because the question has been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) on several occasions. I have asked it on one or two occasions, and others have asked it, and with his well-known geniality the right hon. Gentleman has always been able to get away without answering it. I hope whoever is going to reply for the Admiralty to-day will give us an answer, so as to make quite clear who is to have control and direction under combined action. The rise and development of the Air Service have changed all the relationships, I think, of the whole fighting Services. In days gone by they were pretty clearly defined. The Navy then was considered the first line
of defence. Its position was rightly marked out on the high seas, and it was responsible for protecting these shores, keeping open the channels of communication, and sometimes taking aggressive action on the coasts of the enemy. But now that we are operating in the three dimensions, entirely different problems are raised-problems of co-ordination, organisation, and economy. One does not need to have been inside either of the Departments to realise there is a pretty strong rivalry between all Departments—to put it no higher—as to which is going to be supreme, and the part it is going to play in certain circumstances.
It has been suggested—and I commend it to the Government, as it has been commended in former Debates—that the time is now past when we can run our fighting Services on the same lines as we have done hitherto, as wholly distinct units, separate from one another, and I do urge that close attention should be given to the suggestion of forming something in the nature of a Ministry of Defence, whereby we would be able to co-ordinate all three Services under one head. I believe the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge went so far the other day as to suggest that certain Cabinet Ministers and Under-Secretaries of State should be abolished. He is more daring than I am. I am not going to make any suggestion on those lines. It is quite patent that there should be a considerable saving in that direction alone, but there must be a very great deal of saving on the administration side. If the saving were not expressed in cash, it would certainly be expressed in higher efficiency and better co-ordination. I hope we may have some statement from the Government that before very long they are going to give very serious attention to this. I quite appreciate that among those who are in authority at the present moment it would arouse a very considerable amount of opposition, and the very obvious question would arise as to who is to be the head.
That problem, thank goodness ! the Government themselves have to settle, and I wish them joy of the job, assuming they consider the suggestion. There can be, however, one or two preliminary steps taken that will go a long way towards easing the situation which is almost inevitable. One does hope, for
instance, that it will not be so long postponed that in the event of another war we should have bother and differences between the two Services instead of a proper co-ordinated system. I suggest, for instance, it would be quite possible to make a start with co-ordination and the bringing together of such services as the purchasing of stores. There is no reason, as I thought during the little time I was at the Admiralty, why we should run three separate establishments for the Army, Navy and Air Force in this respect. For one thing alone, we are spending thousands of pounds upon buyers who command tremendous salaries, and there have to be several in each Department. We could reduce that expenditure very considerably by getting all our purchases of stores under one head. After all, there is going to be a considerable change. The Air Force, to a certain extent, will come into contact with the other two Services. If we do not do something like this, we shall simply have a lot of overlapping, with more waste of money and work than now. I do commend this to the right hon. Gentleman for consideration, and I am sure his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at this only too eagerly if he can see any possibility of saving anything. Here, again, I dare say vested interests will put up a good fight, but they must give place to the needs of the nation, changing circumstances and the demand for efficiency and greater economy.
The next suggestion I have to make is one that has been raised here on several occasions. It is that the medical service seems to be costing far more than it ought to cost per head, at any rate, speaking for the Navy, and here, again, I cannot see for the life of me why that cannot be Co-ordinated under one head, and thus help to simplify the routine work of administration, save a considerable sum of money to the country, give us greater and better efficiency and knit the Services closer together as a whole than at the present time. I am not so sure whether the next suggestion I make will meet with the same approval that I gather the last two received. I suggest it is time we began to bring our Staff Colleges and education together. Surely the last War ought to have taught us something in that respect. With the closer co-operation that is bound to come
in the three Services by the development of the Air Service, it is most essential that nothing should be done to keep up the cleavage that still exists between the three Services. One of the things that would bring about closer co-operation as quickly as anything else would be to bring people together in the initial days of training in the Staff Colleges. I suggest there is great room for economy in that direction, and certainly for greater efficiency to the advantage of the Service itself.
The last suggestion I have to make is this, and I want here to pay tribute, from my own investigation and knowledge, to the wonderful work being done in the research department of the Admiralty. They have done and are doing some wonderful, fascinating, almost marvellous work, but I do suggest we might combine and co-ordinate our researches for all the departments without in any way interfering with the specialised work that has got to be done in connection with a particular service. There is a lot of work common to both Services such as gunnery, the use of explosives, and many other things which will occur readily to professional Members of the House. I should think by co-operation and the pooling of knowledge of the sciences in the different departments of all three Services, the Services would be considerably advantaged and there would be a great saving to the country.
I make these three or four suggestions which, I believe, are practical suggestions, for economy and for adding to the efficiency of the Services themselves. I conclude very much on the same note as that on which I began. While we in all parts of the House must, as we do, pay tribute to the high efficiency, loyalty and gallantry of the men in the Navy, we are bound to say the policy of the Government, as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, or rather avoided by the right hon. Gentleman in putting high policy before us, is calculated to lead to war again in the Far East, where suspicions are aroused in the minds of Japan and China that our being there is simply to cut across the food supply of those nations. That suspicion will necessarily breed ill will, and will make war inevitable in the days to come. While we cannot as a party accept the Amendment put down in the names of hon.
Members on this side, we shall give wholehearted support to that in the name of the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour).
I should like to remind the House that the present Prime Minister has already committed himself to that policy. On the lamentable occasion when M.1 was sunk the right hon. Gentleman was asked several questions in regard to the matter, and also as to whether the Government could see its way clear to call an International conference and to consider the abolition of the submarine as an engine of war. I took occasion to reinforce my statement then by quoting from the speech made by the chairman of Lloyds, a responsible person who called upon the Government to take the necessary steps. In reply to me, the Prime Minister himself said that he hoped this would be a matter that would come under discussion at an International conference. If the Government are as sincere as we are led to believe in this matter, is it not time they set about it? Despite that fact, they go on keeping up the War Services, they go on building an Air Fleet against our Allies, and building docks at Singapore.
Instead of this we should like to have a gesture in the other direction by the vote of this House, and in favour of the proposal that my right hon. Friend himself put forward as to the abolition of these various causes of frightfulness. It shows how once you get into the toils the only complaint you can have on the score of frightfulness as a nation is that somebody else has got there first. In view of the position now, surely we can support a better policy. Surely we are prepared to abolish the submarine, and to meet other nations at the earliest possible date to consider the whole question of disarmament, in which conference I hope will be included the question of Singapore, increased air forces, and so forth. I hope that some answer will be given dealing with the questions I have put, particularly as to why the Government have changed their policy and are putting down a floating dock or a graving dock; why it is that we are blockading the Riff coast and taking an active part in warfare against those upon whom we have not declared war, and without any information having been brought to this House? I hope the hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will find
occasion to answer these questions. I refer to the question about Singapore, and as to the graving and floating docks that were mentioned last year.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: On 19th March of last year I spoke for the first time on the subject, and said:
We have decided to proceed with the provision of a dock at Singapore. The programme so far decided upon is to set a floating dock in the old Straight. It will take about three years to complete.
I also said that:
Nothing can be done to begin it for a year or two from now.[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1925; cols. 2521 and 2522, Vol. 181.]
Therefore, we are in exactly the same position as we were last year.

Mr. AMMON: Was not that a change of policy? That is the position we take up.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That was the first time we ever mentioned the floating dock, as far as I remember.

Mr. AMMON: I must apologise if I have not made myself quite clear. It was not so much last year that the change of policy came. It was said that the graving dock was to be laid down, and then we heard about the floating dock, and now we get the further statement to-day. Is there not indicated there a change of policy? Why is there a change of policy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not quite understand that. I think the hon. Gentleman is probably quite right in saying that in previous Governments a floating dock was not mentioned. But the only time I have spoken responsibly, as representing the Admiralty, I referred to a programme exactly the same as the present. The floating dock is to be finished first; the graving dock is a matter for further consideration. The larger scheme is not withdrawn—but the Government are still considering the date at which the full scheme is to be completed, the rate of progress, and the extent of the scheme and will have the advantage of consultation with Dominion representatives at the Imperial Conference.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I daresay it is just possible that the Conservative predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has given rise to this small controversy with regard to Singapore for, if my memory serves me rightly, the Colonial Secretary did make a statement somewhat to that effect. It was with a certain relief that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say to-day that he was not going to follow the policy of his predecessor in regard to Singapore. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing whatever in his speech in regard to the relationship between the Admiralty and the other Departments. He gave no indication of the feeling that we know always exists between the War Office and the Admiralty. He said nothing about the overlapping or the attempts to avoid overlapping between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry. He gave us no indication whether or not any attempt had been made at the Admiralty or elsewhere to co-ordinate the two Services.
Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman will have to hear the same arguments pressed upon him from every quarter of the House. His own supporters are not less interested than we are in this matter, and those Members who are in the Services, and others who are not in the Services, but who take a national interest in the Estimates, will also have something to say. This pressure will be continued until the right hon. Gentleman gets the full benefit, for instance, of that Government buying to which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has drawn attention. Each of the Departments separately having separate buyers buy very much the same things. They buy from the same places. The stores come along in very much the same packages, and it would be quite possible to co-ordinate the whole of the purchases, except those which are peculiar to ships, in one central buying authority. It is equally evident that there is no reason why there should be one medical branch working for the Admiralty, another for the Army, and another for the Air Force. One set of hospitals ought to be sufficient for the men of any of these forces. This would save, possibly, a very large sum, for the men suffer from the same complaints and are liable to the same accidents. They come under the same medi-
cal profession, the same nurses, and there is no reason in the world why they should not be got into the same Estimates. There are economies to be made in these matters. When the right hon. Gentleman finds he is working under pressure from the Exchequer, he might well turn to a few of these matters as well as those technical extravagances which he has striven against during the year.
There is also the other matter of the co-ordination of policy between the Departments, which is now said to be under the control of the Committee of Imperial Defence The Committee has rendered great services in the past, and this country will be always under a debt to the Earl of Balfour for having been the author of the Committee of Imperial Defence. But its powers are not quite enough. They are not sufficient to affect the executive functions of the three Departments, although co-ordinating to some extent the policy of the Government. They appear to have little or no influence upon the administration of the Departments concerned. Another opportunity will arise for discussing the Ministry of Defence. I think it is only right to warn the right hon. Gentleman that pressure on this subject will come not from one quarter of the House, but from every quarter, for it is quite clear from the experiences of the right hon. Gentleman himself in his Department that it is the business of the Minister to overcome the purely sectional opposition if in the national interest these changes are worth bringing about. The Minister has to overcome the peculiar enthusiasms of the Departments and carry out what will obviously benefit not only the Services themselves, but the Exchequer and the taxpayer.
There was another omission in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He said little or nothing about the dockyards and the dockyard men. He gave no indication in his speech of what is to be done with the dockyard men. Large numbers of men have been moved about from centre to centre. In some cases they have been plunged into housing troubles very difficult to overcome, and not only in England. In the interest of those who have served the Admiralty loyally in all parts of England, Scotland and Wales it might have been as well if the right hon.
Gentleman had thrown some light upon the beneficence of his policy in regard to them.
I come to the actual economies which the right hon. Gentleman desires to attain. The first thing which strikes me is one about which several questions were put to him last year. I put several myself on the marriage allowance for officers. Last year £350,000 was voted for officers' marriage allowance. It passed the Committee of Supply. The full authority of the House of Commons was given to it. The Admiralty refuse to extend the marriage allowance for officers, although the House of Commons has given it complete sanction. This is one of the economies which the right hon. Gentleman has claimed. He has gained a reduction in the total of his Estimates at the expense of his officers. I do not know what description he applies to it, for it is a kind of economy that can scarcely give him personally any satisfaction.
May I make one suggestion to him. As the marriage allowance for officers has gone, would he not consider the possibility of providing a travelling allowance for the wives of naval officers when they are stationed far away at the other side of the world? It would be a great assistance to them to be able to travel backwards and forwards at the expense of their employers. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that he will do something to remove the feelings of exacerbation, dissatisfaction, and discontent which has been aroused. After we have had a decision of the House of Commons and he has deprived these people of benefits that they thought they had attained. That is one economy—the first.
What are the others? It has been declared from the Government Benches that the Navy Votes this year are nearly £2,500,000 below last year. I am not quite sure that it has not been obtained by the right hon. Gentleman living on his stores. It looks to me on the first examination of his Estimates, and the volume published in explanation, that at least £500,000 out of that £2,500,000 saved comes from the right hon. Gentleman living on his stores. He will find that he will have to fill up those stores again.
Here you have not an economy, but a mere postponement of expense.
I take the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House to-day. What do I find? In the first place, I find the great reduction on the Vote is somewhat counterbalanced by a comparison between this year's Estimate and the Estimate for the year before last. In 1924–25 the issue from the Exchequer for the Admiralty came to £55,625,000. I eliminate for the purpose of comparison the Fleet Air Arm Vote. If you eliminate that from this year's Estimates, that is to say, keep it out of the account for the purposes of comparison, it is clear that the increase over 1924 is nearly £2,000,000—£1,970,000. The right hon. Gentleman may plume himself on having made a reduction of £2,500,000, or more nearly £2,000,000, this year, but he is still nearly £2,000,000 above the Vote of two years ago, and if he goes one year further back he is £3,500,000 out. [Interruption.] I do not know which of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues was in office, but he had better ask him about it. As far as I know, this living on stores cannot go on year after year without stores being replenished. What I am pointing out is that the words in the Exchequer Returns show that the amount which the right hon. Gentleman will probably draw at the end of this year will come to more than £3,500,000 over the total Votes of three years ago, nearly £2,000,000 over the Vote of two years ago, and probably £2,000,000 above the Vote of last year. If he is to get any credit out of this reduction, it is only due to his own extravagance of a year ago, and not due to general economy in policy.
The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out some of the directions in which economies cannot be pressed any further. Replying to the criticism regarding the large staff still to be found at the Admiralty—a larger staff to administer a smaller Fleet, although the Fleet may be a more complex mechanical instrument; before the War the staff of the Admiralty numbered some 2,072, whereas now it is 3,152—he said the justification for that increase was that before the War the Admiralty was understaffed. I was not in the Admiralty at that time, and I am not sure what was happening, but I only know that when I came in contact with the
officials of the Admiralty I found them among the most efficient civil servants in the whole of the Government service, and I think they still remain the most efficient. I doubt very much whether the Admiralty was understaffed, but if it was understaffed it is the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who is to blame, for he was First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting by his side, and I wondered what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to say as to the understaffing of the Admiralty before the War. As a matter of fact, before the War the Admiralty did its work uncommonly well. If it had not done it uncommonly well, it would have gone very hard with us when war broke out.
He also said that part of the extra expenditure on the staff of the Admiralty was owing to the absence of a Naval General Staff before the War. I am not going into that highly technical question, but I would point out that even though there may not have been in name a Naval General Staff, there was such complete preparation at the Admiralty in 1914 that the Navy was undoubtedly the first arm to be ready for the operations which started early in August. The Navy did its work most admirably, its plans were world wide in scope, and in the absence of what has since been called a Naval General Staff it had a record of which the Admiralty of any country might well be proud. Here again it was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for that Naval Staff, and it is yet to be proved whether the presence of a Naval General Staff has added greatly to the efficiency of the Fleet. It certainly remains to be proved whether it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, that it requires a staff 50 per cent. larger than before the War to administer a Fleet which is about 50 per cent. less.
The Admiralty look at their Estimates from a purely technical point of view, and they are quite justified in doing so. They are prepared to defend our trade routes. They still, I presume, hold the same doctrines of naval warfare which have been our rule ever since the days of Nelson, and I should be very sorry to see them weaken our position relatively to the only naval Powers with which we are ever
likely to be in conflict. But the right hon. Gentleman threw no right on the comparative strength of our Fleet with any other European Fleet. He said nothing whatever about our strength m submarines in comparison with some of our neighbours. He made no reference to the United States of America, except to say that he was not responsible for their Estimates. I can quite appreciate the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to break away from the old naval discussions which some of us have heard here for 25 years, in which comparative tables were bandied across the Floor of the House, leading to little or no conclusion of any real weight, but at all events we had the right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would throw some light upon the necessity for maintaining our naval force at its present level and adding to it.
Last year he was responsible for a Naval programme which was adopted by the Government as a whole, and all his colleagues are, therefore, as much responsible for that programme as he is. Nothing has been said now, and nothing has been said since last year, which could justify a Cruiser Fleet as large as that which is provided under his programme. I should be one of the last to complain of anything that was necessary for the maintenance of our trade communications and of our supplies of food and raw materials, but it is incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to justify, not only to this House, but to the country as a whole, the size of our Cruiser Fleet, and to give, as he can give, good reasons, intelligible to the lay mind, for increasing our Cruiser Fleet at the present time. Programme arrangements I have always held to be much more economical than purely sporadic building, which goes up one year and down another, but the justification for that programme has yet to come from the Government.
Meanwhile, the country as a whole takes a lively interest in the total expenditure on armaments, and it cannot refrain from comparing that total expenditure this year, £117,000,000, with the amount which used to be spent before the War, especially in view of the new international position. The Government as a whole are responsible for a policy which does them every credit. It has been described far too often, until one
becomes a little tired of the phrase, "The Locarno spirit." The value of the Locarno spirit can only be measured by a reduction in armaments. If it is to be of any ultimate value, we must see a reduction in the Votes of all three Services, progressive and comparative disarmament throughout Europe. The Locarno spirit will be of no use unless it is followed by a determined effort on the part of the Government to secure effective disarmament conferences and effective disarmament proposals. Their duty lies as much in that direction as it does in the maintenance of large Cruiser Fleets, and I trust that in considering these Estimates neither the Government nor the House will dismiss from their minds the necessity of maintaining in their international policy a constant effort to bring about a reduction of Fleets and Armies and Air Forces.
Unless that is done, Heaven only knows what will be the future of this country, because no preparations will be sufficient to protect us from comparative destruction. On every ground, human and financial, we are entitled to press the Government not to allow their Estimates for the three great Services to be the last word they have to say on the subject. Let them throw themselves wholeheartedly into the League of Nations policy and translate that into administrative action.

Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMS: I ask the indulgence of the House in speaking here for the first time. I do so as, I think, the most junior ex-naval officer in the House and so less experienced, but I did spend 10 years of my life in the Service, and, therefore, I have had some little experience that other Members of this House may not have had. In discussing these Estimates, I feel that science is advancing so quickly that it is impossible for any Member, whatever his past experience has been, to be dogmatic about what is to happen in the future. The relation of the Air Force to the Navy must be a very problematical one, and in any remarks in which I try to express my opinion I do not wish to be regarded as dogmatic; it is only an attempt to give my opinion, based on what little experience I had during the War.
In the first place, I would like to associate myself with those hon. Mem-
bers who have urged the creation of a Ministry of Defence. Although I was a naval officer, I think it would be a retrograde step to abolish the Air Ministry, or regard it as redundant, at a time when the Air Force, and the Air Service in general, is advancing at a faster pace than, perhaps, the other Services. At the same time, I think we feel that there are parts of the Admiralty, parts of the War Office, and parts of the Air Ministry that are redundant, and it is with that in mind that we urge the creation of a Ministry of Defence. The question is often raised whether the big ships and the battle ships are obsolete; and it becomes a more difficult question to answer as years go on, and the lessons of the War recede further from us. I would remind hon. Members that a few days before the end of the War, there was a mutiny in the German fleet. I think it is correct to say that that mutiny was not due to our destroyers or our submarines, or even to our aeroplanes, but to the fact that the German sailors did not wish to meet our Grand Fleet again. They claim to have won a victory at Jutland; they did not wish to win a second. If that assumption be correct, we may claim that the big ship came out of the War as still the. dominant factor in naval warfare. That is only the personal opinion of a very junior officer; but I think the battleship has not yet been proved obsolete. It is true too, that it has become very much more expensive in every way.
Hon. Members cannot realise, unless they have been through one, what a very complicated affair a naval battle is. Mass attacks from the air cannot very seriously menace the battleships of a Navy to-day. It is more than doubtful whether massed attacks from the air would wipe out battleships, even at the present day. Presumably anti-aircraft gunnery advances, and what with smoke screens, high speeds and alterations of course, I think it is quite doubtful whether even yet the battleship would be out of date in a modern naval battle. I can see no reason myself, and I say it in all humility, why, if other nations agree to abandon big ships, we should not agree to do so. I believe, in this policy of disarmament, it would be the wiser policy to concentrate on abandoning big ships; it is a policy on which we could advance further than
with the policy of urging the abolition of submarines.
6.0 P.M
It is so obviously in our own interests to abolish submarines that we are almost bound to make that suggestion with our tongue in our cheek; but we can go forward and say we are perfectly willing to abandon big ships, if other nations do the same. Therefore we shall be able to save the world tens of millions of non-productive expenditure. Until that is done, I do not see how a big reduction in our Fleet arm and in the Navy Estimates can take place. With regard to the submarine, I think it is still a menace to the big ships, but I would remind hon. Members that at the end of the War we had the submarine very much more under control than in the year 1916 or 1917, and it is quite likely that since the War the listening apparatus with which we were supplied at that time has been developed to such an extent as to make this country more secure from the submarine than it was in 1916 and 1917.
It is usual, when a private Member speaks, to urge the Government to extra expenditure, and I am afraid I cannot altogether escape from that usual fault. But I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider very carefully whether it is wise to scrap so many of our old destroyers. In the unhappy-event of war, I am sure those old destroyers would be very necessary and useful for defence against submarines. The turning point in the naval war from the submarine point of view in 1917 was when we adopted the convoy system, and convoyed our ships with destroyers. All that is necessary for this convoy work and protective work against submarines is some out-of-date destroyers of about 25 to 30 knots, and they need not necessarily have up-to-date guns. Even if these old destroyers are not a menace to anybody else, I think they should be kept for defensive purposes against a submarine attack. Therefore I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will consider very carefully this point before scrapping more of the old destroyers. I believe they cost to maintain about £3000 or £4000 a year, but in the event of a sudden emergency it would cost the nation vast sums to build suddenly the large quantities of destroyers which presumably would then be necessary.
There are one or two smaller points with regard to economy that might be brought about, and which I believe are under consideration at the present time. One point is the congested state of the Lieut.-Commanders in the Service at the present time. It might be possible for the Admiralty to make it much easier for a Lieut.-Commander, once he has passed the promotion zone, to get his pension earlier, in order that he might take up a job in civilian life three or four years earlier. This would make it easier for him to get civilian employment, and would at the same time be reducing naval expenditure, because at the present time a number of these officers are employed upon dockyard jobs which cannot do them any good, and they are wasting valuable time before taking up civilian employment. I believe this would be much more economical than the full pay which many of them enjoy at the present time, and it would make it easier for Lieut.-Commanders to retire earlier once they have passed the promotion zone.
With regard to co-operation with the Merchant Service, I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will not neglect that matter. In the early days of the War we used to convoy merchant ships. When the dawn came every morning it was a matter of doubt as to how many of the merchant ships we were convoying would remain in sight. It would be advisable to have more co-operation between naval officers and merchant service officers. Each has something to learn from the other. I do not think this would mean much extra expense, but at any rate I hope the Admiralty will encourage this, so that, in the event of war, the merchant service officers may know what is expected of them from a naval point of view. Some of the unfortunate experiences we had during the War could be avoided in the future by more co-operation between the two services.
There are two other points I would like to urge. What is most necessary with regard to the Navy is to have, whatever size it may be, the most up-to-date and the most efficient service in the world. The lesson of the War was that if it is at all possible you should be able to send a superior force against any enemy fighting against us. An inferior force, or one inadequately equipped, cannot compete against the foreign Fleets of to-day. It
is a most unpleasant thing to be cruising in the enemy waters and to find yourselves outranged and outspeeded by ships of the same type possessed by your enemy. In conclusion, I wish to say that we should keep those two things in view and whatever the size of the Navy is, if we endeavour to make it the most efficient and up to date in the world, then I believe our Navy will always be able to maintain its past traditions.

Captain GUEST: I feel sure that I shall be voicing the sentiments of all hon. Members present if on their behalf I presume to congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down upon his maiden speech. During this Debate the speech which has given me most satisfaction is the one made by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), because he expressed better than I can a good many of the thoughts that have been passing through my mind, and points which I want to emphasise this afternoon. I have put an Amendment on the Paper, and I am in a position to defend it. I am, however, anxious that it should not be misunderstood, because moving what is practically a reduction of the Navy Vote does not necessarily mean that I am a "Little Englander," and I did not put it down in an unfriendly spirit to the Government. I am anxious that the present Government should remain in power for its full length of time so long as it pursues a course which steers between reaction and Socialism, and if it does that then I wish to see the Government returned again at the next General Election.
I feel sure, however, that it will not be returned, and its candidates will not be successful at by-elections unless it devotes more attention to the vital needs of economy. There is no sign in these Estimates of a real attempt at economy. If you look at the Memorandum to start with, you will find it is disappointing and mystifying, and it is really very little more than a re-arrangement. If I could liken the results of the Government's! naval policy to anything, I should say that at all costs the experts and the admirals are determined to preserve the size of the machine. Whatever size the Navy is, let it, at any rate, be absolutely efficient to the last degree. The Navy with which we are presented to-day is one which has been drained of its life-
blood. It really means that there are hopes in the Admiralty that they will be able to pump new blood back into the machine, and keep it at its present size.
Turning from the Memorandum to the Estimates, these form a volume almost as big as the telephone book, and how hon. Members can understand and read that Memorandum page by page within a week of the Estimates being presented I do not know. I want to ask the Government if it is not a fact that at the request of the House of Commons the Colwyn Committee was set up to look into the finances of all the three Services. The Report of the Colwyn Committee, I understand, is in the hands of the Government. Why has it been withheld from the House of Commons? It would have enormously assisted us if we had been in possession even of an outline of the Colwyn Report. It may be said that it is a Government and a Cabinet Report, and as such is not to be presented to us. If so, why was a portion of it read the other day in the House of Lords when they were dealing with the Air Ministry? The Report of the Colwyn Committee which was set up at the request of the House of Commons ought to be available to us when we are dealing with a policy on such an enormous scale.
Perhaps I shall be taking an unpopular course if I plead for a naval holiday. There are reasons why this request is particularly opportune at the present moment. There are considerations in Europe at the present time which lead one to hope for a peaceful period. The Locarno atmosphere, I am glad to believe, is shortly to be followed by a Disarmament Conference under the auspices of the League of Nations. These are two important incidents, one relating to the past and the other to the future, and I think this is certainly a time when a pause might be made in our naval construction. I have another point which I wish to make. I would like to know what is the present standard and how was it fixed? I submit that the War in which that standard came about has no relation whatever to the needs of the Empire as regards the size of its Navy. It will be remembered that shortly after the War the United States came to the conclusion that they must have a great Navy. They drew up a programme, a staggering programme, presented it to
Congress, and carried it through. I maintain that the standard we are resting on to-day which has been described by our naval experts as a one-Power standard, has far more relation to the panic programme put forward by the United States than to the needs of the nation at the present time.
I have a further suggestion to make in this respect. Let the United States have a Navy of any size it likes. What has it to do with our requirements in dealing with European and Eastern considerations? I submit that, if we could once get out of our heads the necessity and, as I shall shortly prove, the inadvisability of trying to compete with the Navy of the United States, there would be a real chance of economy, not merely to the extent of £2,000,000, but, perhaps, of £20,000,000. How can we build against America? If the competition ever starts, this country will be ruined. There is no chance or hope of any kind of its keeping pace in a competition of that kind, once it is started. In the second place—and this seems to me to be even more important—why should we build against our best friends? Some may say that that is expressing too sentimental a view in this connection, but I daresay there are not many Members of the House who know the sentiment of the United States much better than I do, and I am convinced that, unless we take advantage of a good opportunity like this to indicate that we have no fear of competition from them in relation to naval armaments, we shall be losing a friend who proved to be the best friend we ever had in the bad days of the War.
I pass from that consideration, and also pass rather rapidly over the Locarno atmosphere and the hopes and prospects of the Disarmament Conference of the Autumn, but, under the influence of those considerations, I submit to the Government that they have an opportunity now of presenting us with a provisonal Estimate. If the hopes of the Autumn are fulfilled, so much the better; they will not need the expense which they have outlined to-day. If, on the other hand, their hopes are not fulfilled, if Europe should not become more peaceful, and if, instead of making more friends, we are unable to get together in a satisfactory way and to disarm, there is no difficulty in the Minister coming to the House of Commons, telling us the story, and asking
for more money. The other consideration in relation to this Estimate is the stategical one. I will not elaborate it beyond saying this, that the experts are themselves unable to arrive at a conclusion upon very vital matters. The experience of the War, the development of the air arm, the use of the cruiser as opposed to the battleship—which was very ably expressed by the hon. Gentleman who spoke immediately before me—show conclusively that there is so much to be probed still before the solution is reached that now, again, in this connection, is the right moment for a naval pause.
I will leave the question of the substitution, or limited substitution, of an air fleet for the naval fleet to other hon. Members to discuss, but I think it will be admitted on all sides that no better time has presented itself to us since the days of the War for a pause and a naval holiday. I have asked the Minister and the Government to consider presenting to the House of Commons a provisional Estimate, and I wish to support that by one or two further arguments and considerations. The country is always complaining that Parliament appears to have little or no control over finance. What is the answer? To-day is the. answer. The Government are presenting us with a programme which is going to cost very nearly £60,000,000, with very little explanation, and we have to take it on trust as necessary. If more time were devoted to the consideration of Estimates, and less to introducing legislation in this Chamber, the country would be a great deal better pleased.
My impression of the Estimates as a whole is that this programme has been forced upon the Minister by the great naval hierarchy, with whom he is unable to compete. That is the impression that is produced upon my mind; and what is behind it? The weapon of the strike. It is well known to many of us in this House, and to many outside, that time and again great authorities in the Admiralty have threatened to resign unless they got their way. That is well known, and I submit that, unless Ministers in charge of Departments are prepared to say, "If you strike, we will answer with the weapon of the lock-out," there is little or no chance of bringing these gentlemen to reason. I do not blame them. After
all, as my right hon. Friend has said, their point of view is bound to be sectional, it is bound to be professional, and you cannot expect it to be national as well. It is the business of the politicians to decide upon a national as opposed to a professional or sectional question, and it is only they who can decide, because it is only they who realise that, unless the burden of taxation is taken from industry all through the land, we shall find ourselves one day in the position of being unable to have a Fleet at all.

Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) made two purely gratuitous assumptions in the course of his speech. In the first place, he made the gratuitous assumption that we were building against the United States, because we made an agreement with the United States that we should have equal Navies and a proportional ratio with Japan. As a matter of fact, throughout the United States, as the hon. and gallant Member ought to know, it was most generously recognised by all the newspapers that this country had stepped down from a position, which she had always claimed, of naval supremacy against any other Power, and that we had made a very generous concession in agreeing to equality of standard with the United States and a proportional ratio in regard to Japan.
The other gratuitous assumption made by the hon. and gallant Member is that it is well known that the Sea Lords of the Admiralty threatened resignation. The Ministry may fear resignation, but I doubt if the Sea Lords ever threatened it. In any case, if men are responsible for the safety of this country and the adequacy of the Fleet, and if the responsible political authorities prevent them from having an adequate Fleet, they are quite entitled to say, "We cannot carry on." I doubt very much whether the so-called threat of resignation has ever been made except with very good reason indeed. I know, of course, that the very patriotic First Lord of the Admiralty was prepared to say that, if he did not get adequate provision for the Fleet for which he was responsible, he would resign, but that is a different thing altogether. Political chiefs are always entitled to resign, and any man is entitled
to resign if the country does not give him an adequate Fleet to carry out his work.
I desire to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). With some parts of his speech I can completely agree. I can agree with him when he pleaded for the abolition of submarines, in accordance with the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour); but there has never been any difference of opinion in this House on that question. His Majesty's Government have always proposed the abolition of submarines. They proposed it at the Washington Conference. We had the strongest and most efficient submarine fleet in the world, and we offered to scrap the whole of it. It was because France refused to agree that that proposal fell through. The hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol proposed that we should have another Disarmament Conference, and I think, again, that His Majesty's Government and this House are in complete agreement that there is no objection in this country to another Disarmament Conference; it was part and parcel of the policy of the Government.

Captain GUEST: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to correct an error? I understand that there is to be a Disarmament Conference, and I was not suggesting that the Government should set up a new one, but that the one which is to be held under the auspices of the League of Nations should be taken advantage of.

Commander BELLAIRS: This is a purely naval question. The Amendment speaks of disarmament through the League of Nations. There are four or five great naval Powers. On purely naval questions, why should we drag in 50 Powers to settle what a particular Navy should be? I think that that would be absurd on the face of it. The Conference that took place at Washington was a success. It did bring about a certain amount of disarmament. That was a Conference of the great naval Powers, and I do not think there could be any better solution of the difficulty than for the President of the United States to summon a Conference as soon as possible on this question of further naval disarmament.
We have had before us again the question of a Ministry of Defence in order to bring about more co-ordination. I think the demand of this House for a Ministry of Defence is due to the fact that it is so difficult to bring about co-ordination through the agency of this House, its Estimates Committee, or its Public Accounts Committee. I have myself in the past pressed for co-ordination. I remember the difficulty I had in getting the naval and military bakeries amalgamated. I have also pleaded for single hospitals at naval ports to deal with both military and naval needs. It was not until the Geddes Committee was set up, and one could write to Sir Eric Geddes personally, that we succeeded in getting the recommendation carried through for single hospitals for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
How were we defeated? The Government immediately appointed the head of the Army Medical Service to confer with the head of the Naval Medical Service, and these gentlemen sat down and said, "We will give a sop to the Geddes Committee. You naval fellows give up Gibraltar, and we of the Army will give up Chatham"; and then, having given us that sop, they shut the lid down on any further reform in the matter. Therefore, the House, in despair, naturally asks for a Ministry of Defence.
I have always, in the years before the War, advocated a Ministry of Defence. The idea is not original; it belonged to Lord Randolph Churchill, who proposed it in a Minority Report of the Harting ton Commission. There are two considerations which have to be applied. In the first place, have we any Minister or ex-Minister adequate to cope with the tremendous work of initiating a Ministry of Defence to deal with the three fighting Services. The situation is much more difficult than when we had to deal with two fighting Services, for we now have to deal with the Air Ministry as well. Hon. Members in all parts of the House say that the staffs must be got to work together. The Navy recognised that. The Navy wanted to take their Staff College to Camberley, and were only deterred by the fact that they would probably have to build a college at Camberley. But the Air Force was a new force, and it deliberately took its Staff College as far away as it could from
Gamberley. Until you get the right spirit between the three Services and a real desire to co-operate, you can achieve nothing.
I do not want to deal at length with the hon. Member's remarks about Singapore; we have traversed the whole of that ground again and again. Hon. Members will keep on reiterating that it is a threat to Japan, in spite of the fact that at the Washington Conference the Japanese agreed, because they saw the necessity of Singapore, to draw the line at a prohibited area east of Singapore, so that Singapore could be equipped as a naval dockyard. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said that Singapore is a threat to the food supplies of Japan. Surely, Hong Kong is even nearer to Japan, and at Hong Kong there is a naval dockyard, which we were not prohibited from using. Surely, when Japan has six dockyards, we are entitled to have at least one in the East where we can dock great ships, where we can dock our newest cruisers and battleships of the "Hood" class. Otherwise, a disabled ship, even for a one-day job like shifting a propeller, would have to go to Malta and back. Of course, as everyone knows, you cannot defend commerce unless you have a Fleet behind the cruisers. If we had only cruisers in the Pacific, and they had to face an enemy Fleet, they would have to give up the job and run. At the back of the cruisers must lie the Fleet. It was because Germany had not any Fleet able to go to sea and back her cruisers that her commerce fell a victim to the British cruisers and was abandoned.
The First Lord of the Admiralty in his admirable and lucid speech showed us how he had effected economies on the Navy. He showed that it was largely due to a fixed programme. A fixed programme also enables one to economise one's speech, which I think is an advantage to the House, because we now know what we have ahead of us. We do not want to make those comparisons we formerly made between battleships, cruisers and destroyers. The programme, I take it, satisfies the Admiralty and satisfies the War staff. In that case it satisfies me. But there are certain things to which I wish to draw attention. I think the greatest danger that threatens
this country at this moment is the loss of the sea sense—that sense in the country of how much it depends upon the Navy—and that has been intensified by propaganda from the Air Force advocates. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] I think those who know how we depend upon the Navy—the members of the Government know it, or they are not fit for their job—ought to exercise a little leadership in order to bring back that sea sense, that sense of what the Navy had done in the past and what it can do for the country in the future.
The second point with which I wish to deal on which our naval strength depends is the failure of France to carry out obligations contracted under the Washington Conference in connection with the Root Resolutions, and the third point is the order the Cabinet has issued to the fighting Forces that they are not to take into consideration a first-class war for 10 years to come. The Root Resolutions are part and parcel of the Washington Conference of 1921; that is to say, they were accepted by France five years ago. These Resolutions had the force of law. They were to do away with the horrors of submarine and air warfare against helpless commercial vessels and passenger ships. They prevented those ships being sunk at sight It was laid down that the safety of passengers and crews was to be provided for. All the nations that took part in the Washington Conference have ratified those Resolutions except France. M. Briand was the representative of France. He signed these Resolutions, and there is no doubt whatever that a storm of public opinion in the United States was allayed and prevented by the fact that he signed them. They have never been brought before the French Chamber or sent for ratification, and we have to remember that France at the same time has 116 ships built, cruisers, destroyers and submarines, capable of being used against commerce and practising sink-at-sight doctrines. What is more important, she has 105 cruisers, destroyers and submarines building and projected, and we are entitled to say that that great building programme is being carried out with money that is owed to this country. The situation reminds me very much of the story a dentist who went to collect a debt from
a client and came back indignantly saying, "He gnashed my teeth at me!"
We must remember that the original doctrine of sink-at-sight and military necessity was invented by France, that since the War Captain Castex, who re-organised the French Naval War Staff, wrote an article in 1921 in the French Maritime Review in which he said Germany was well within French doctrine in all that she did in the Naval War—that she was absolutely justified in everything she did. How can you expect a more humane phrase than sink-at-sight to dominate France if we are going to cover up French sins in this matter? The only way is publicity. His Majesty's Government have made no protest at any time against the failure of France to ratify the Root Resolutions at Washington, and when they are asked why they have made no protest they say it is the duty of the United States. Why cannot the United States and Great Britain make a protest to France on her failure to ratify the Root Resolutions? I can see no reason whatsoever. If we made that protest, publicity would draw attention to the matter in France, that more chivalrous French opinion—and we know it exists—would function, and we would get some better phrase dominant in France than sink-at-sight and military necessity. After all Balzac, probably the finest observer of the psychology of the French nation, said France was the one country in the world in which a little phrase could produce a great revolution. I am quite sure if we can get a finer and more humane phrase to dominate in France we shall soon bring about disarmament throughout the world.
The other point I want to draw attention to is the order of the Cabinet that the fighting Departments are not to take into consideration a first-class war for 10 years. That order, I believe, was issued in the middle of 1925. Therefore, members of the Cabinet have entered into competition with Old Moore as prophets. The record of statesmen in regard to prophecy is not very good. Our own record on this side of the House has not been happy. We gave up Heligoland with the idea that Germany could never become a great naval Power. It is common to all parties that statesmen cannot visualise the future. Take that famous interview with the Leader of the
Liberal party which appeared in the "Daily Chronicle" seven months before the outbreak of the War. He said the armaments we were carrying out were organised insanity. Our relatione with Germany were infinitely more friendly than they had been for years, and Germany dare not go to war because of the military situation as against France and Russia. Therefore, the less we attempt to pretend to say we know the future 10 years hence the better it will be for all concerned.
In 1917 the Leader of the Liberal party made a speech in which he said we had never passed from rhetoric to reality—from speech to strategy. I think that is true of most of the disarmament speeches. They are nearly all rhetoric and they do not face reality. This Order has never been comunicated to Parliament. In 1919 I believe it was justified. No war preparations were going on in any foreign country which could mature before 1929. But the situation was very different in 1925. I want to know whether this Order has ever been communicated to the Dominions who were present at the 1923 Conference, for at that Conference the Admiralty were entrusted with certain duties that they had to perform. It was agreed that they were responsible for the protection of all territory against invasion. They were responsible for the defence of all trade routes. I would remind the Admiralty that, being responsible for the trade routes, they are entitled" to ask that the coastal flotillas of the Air Force should be under their direction. At present they are entirely officered and manned by the Air Force, and are in no way under the direction of the Admiralty, nor can the Admiralty demand their co-operation.
The Admiralty were made responsible for the provision of bases to ensure the mobility of fleets and for the maintenance of the Navy at the one-Power standard laid down by the Washington Conference, it being understood that no standard was laid down for cruisers and destroyers, because the necessity of defending commerce was much greater for Great Britain than for any other country. This question must come up before the Imperial Conference at the end of this year. Australia and New Zealand between them in 1925 spent £4,460,000 on their Navy. There was in addition £1,000,000 for general defence purposes.
They might just as well chuck that money into the sea if they cannot be assured of the backing of a Great British Fleet. In the event of war with Japan those ships would simply become the prey of the Japanese nation. They would be no use whatever. Therefore, naturally, those Prime Ministers who face realities and know what war would mean are entitled to come to the Imperial Conference and ask the Government their clear intentions as to the future and what this order means which has been given to the fighting Departments, for they will naturally say, "We must either abandon the naval force in order to save the expense or we must increase that force considerably in order to save our country." They cannot possibly face the expenditure of building battleships, we all know that, and if they cannot rely on the support of the British Navy their eyes will naturally turn to the great American nation instead of to us. That is a thing I do not wish even to contemplate. Therefore when they come to England next autumn I hope there will be a heart-to-heart talk on these defence questions, which matter very much. That does not discourage in any way the idea of disarmament. I am a believer in disarmament. I believe it is possible to bring about gradual disarmament and I ask the Government to do all they possibly can to promote those ends.

Mr. GILLETT: I think we have some cause of complaint against the Government that we have not received from the First Lord any very distinct outline of the policy of the Government in regard to armaments. It seems to me that when private Members have to attempt to judge the problem of how much money is to be spent on the Navy, there are two questions that come before us. The first is the larger question of policy and the second the smaller problem how the money is actually to be expended. I should like to deal with the smaller problem first. From remarks which have been made by the Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman), it seems that, of the saving of £2,500,000 that the Minister has taken credit for, about £1,500,000 is easily explained by raiding stores.
I am going to complain about the rather difficult figures that are presented
to us. As far as I can see, there are three accounts dealing with stores. When you take the estimated balance at the end of the year as compared with the balance at the end of March, you find that on the one hand one balance would have increased where the other two would have decreased, and the net difference seems to me to be something like £700,000, representing the sum by which the Minister would have benefited by the reduction. This little dispute that I am having with the Minister relates to a subject which I wish to bring before the House, and that is the way in which the accounts of the Navy and the Army are brought forward, and how exceedingly difficult it is to understand what has actually taken place.
In regard to the Army, we shall have the question brought up again in a very acute form in a few days. The Navy accounts commend themselves as being rather plainer than the Army accounts; but the fact as to how much the stores will have been diminished in the coming year cannot easily be discovered. At any rate, when two of us looking at the accounts have come to a different conclusion it seems to me to indicate how difficult it is to understand what the financial proposals of the Government are, when one comes to deal with the details put before us.
When we turn to other details con nected with finance, I wonder whether hon. Member's realise that while we are sitting here passing these Estimates we are in the position of men who are in control of dockyards and schools as well as being in control of the British Navy, and yet, what possible means have we of judging the simple question whether this or that dockyard or this or that naval port is worth keeping on? When we look at the list of salaries that are paid to the officers responsible for this centre and that centre, we have no means of discovering whether or not they are worth the money. I have looked through the accounts to see whether I could find out easily the amount of work that was going to be done at one of these dockyards, in respect of which we are asked to vote the salaries of a large number of skilled men to supervise the work. You come to the list of salaries, then you turn over several pages and you may find the number of men employed in the
dockyard, and in another place in the Estimates you may be fortunate enough to find the amount spent in buying materials for the work; but you cannot find out whether the dockyard is fully employed.
If the First Lord of the Admiralty were to put a question whether it was best to build our own ships or to put them up to contract, meaning which is the cheapest method, it would be impossible for the House to be able to judge a question of that kind in the way the accounts are presented. Even in a simple matter such as the number of students there are in the schools, one finds that the number is stated, but one is left to calculate exactly how much per head it is costing the State to educate the young men in the schools. If I remember rightly, it seemed to me that the figures of expenditure compared favourably with the expenditure per head for students in the Army colleges and, therefore, there was no reason why the Admiralty should not let us have these facts stated clearly. Is it not possible that the question as to the way in which the accounts are presented might be reconsidered, so that not only could we have the accounts presented with information dealing with the amount of work in the dockyards and other places, but the accounts could be so collected together that we could see at a glance what is the whole amount that is going to be spent in a certain direction? We could then know exactly how much work is being done in the various dockyards, whether this place or that place is fully employed or only partially employed, and any hon. Member who has technical knowledge of the question would be put in a position to know whether things were being done in a satisfactory way. We ought to be put in the same position as a business man who, if he was at the head of a huge company, would want to know whether this or that work was worth going on with, or whether the work in general was proceeding satisfactorily.
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to the criticism that had been made against the Admiralty respecting the number of men employed in the Secretary's Department. When we compare the pre-War figures with some of the figures we have before us to-day, we find that, roughly speaking, pre-War,
the whole number of men employed in any capacity whatever who came under the Navy Vote was 150,000. Roughly speaking to-day, the number is about 100,000. There has been a diminution of 50,000 compared with the last Estimate presented before the War. When I turn to the highest class of officers mentioned in the first list in Vote 1, flag and commissioned officers, I find this extraordinary thing, that these officers are bracketed together in the accounts. The total of these two classes of officers is 5,000, compared with 5,330 in the last pre-War account. These are the most experienced and most skilled and, therefore, the most costly officers. When the number of men employed in the Navy have been reduced by one-third, it is remarkable that this class of officer has only been reduced by 330. We paid to the 5,330 before the War £1,600,000. After allowing for the enormous increase in the cost of living, we are paying to the 5,000 who are on the list to-day ever £2,500,000.
If there had been a reduction in this class of officer proportionate to the reduction in the numbers of the men, we should have had to-day 4,000 of these particular officers, and that would have meant a saving of about £500,000, subject, of course, to pension rights and other claims. How is it that we find that there has only been this small diminution in the number of these officers? Is it that the Minister does not want to turn off these officers, who were required during the War? Is it that he expects that in a short time he will require their services again? Is it that owing to the building programme in hand he expects that in the next four or five years as the ships are finished these officers will find useful and necessary places in the active service of the Navy, and that, therefore, they are being kept on? This is an illustration of a kind of economy that might be considered by some of the newspapers that are interested in these things.
There are several other classes to whom the Minister referred in his speech. There are the Lords of the Admiralty and the Secretaries. Before the War, in the Navy that was waiting for and that met the German menace, there were 10 of these officers costing £20,000, as against a cost to-day of £24,000. Of naval assistants, there were five pre-war, and there are 15 to-day. In the Secre-
tary's department there was a staff of 119 pre-war costing £36,000, compared with 139 costing £75,000 to-day. In the Department of the Director of Naval Ordnance, in 1914, there was a staff of 114 costing £36,000, and to-day there are 220 costing £96,000. There is a considerable increase in the cost of the Accountant-General's Department. If we can have clearer accounts, I do not grudge spending more money on this Department. Pre-war, the staff in this Department totalled 352 at a cost of £76,000: to-day the staff totals 633 and the expenditure £213,000. The First Lord stated that this increase had been brought about because the accounts are being presented in a fuller way. I do not grudge money to that Department, where it is required, but it seems to me that this is a considerable increase in view of the fact that we are dealing with 50,000 fewer men in the Navy.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I explained that there is a great deal more new work to be done.

Mr. GILLETT: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I was not convinced by his statement. It seems to me that the amount of work must be less if you have 50,000 fewer men to deal with.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: indicated dissent.

Mr. GILLETT: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Fifty thousand fewer men seems to me to be a pretty big number. If you had in any business 50,000 fewer employés, you would surely have less work to do.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Thirty thousand more pensioners.

Mr. GILLETT: The right hon. Gentleman must know that to send a pensioner a cheque once a week or once a month does not require so large a clerical staff as when you are dealing with men who are engaged all the time and are making constant claims upon the staff. When one compares the numbers of men in these different Departments of the Admiralty before the War and now, one finds that whereas pre-War we had 600 men doing the work, we now employ 1,000, and we are now spending £400,000 against £172,000 pre-War. These figures make me very sceptical as to how far the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that he has tried to exercise economy in his Depart-
ment is really justified. The right hon. Gentleman is satisfied in his mind, but he has failed to satisfy or convince me that, even allowing for a certain amount of extra work, there should be need for this increased staff in these different Departments. Having regard to the management of the various Departments, and the way in which the financial statements are presented to the House, I hope that the Minister, whether he agrees with my figures or not, will see whether it is not possible that we might have the statement presented to us in future in a better and clearer manner.
7.0 P.M.
The final decision in regard to naval policy is so closely connected with foreign policy and the whole international problems before the world to-day, that it seems to me we cannot rightly judge or come to a decision on it unless we know exactly what the policy of the Government is. There is one thing in this Report with which I confess I have no sympathy whatever. We are told in the White Paper that the Minister has issued, in one or two little asides, that commissions have been sent to reorganise the Greek Navy and to help to organise the Chilian Navy. If there be two things that are cursing the Near Eastern countries of Europe to-day, most of which are nearly bankrupt, one is militarism and the other the fact that they are constantly fighting, and there is endless friction between them. To allow officers, or at any rate put in the Report that we in any way commend the fact that we send officers out to reorganise the Greek Navy, in no way commends itself to me, and I think is entirely against the best interests of that part of the world. I believe there was a time, before the Great War, when naval men went out to prepare the Turkish Navy and to help it to reorganise. The day came when the Turkish Navy was fighting against us. We supplied our armaments to those other nations. The day comes when the armaments are manufactured in this country and used against the sons of men and women of this country.
That is only a small and insignificant thing in connection with this policy. The whole policy is a mistake. Armaments may be manufactured for the benefit, or, shall I say the necessity of that country, and to go and sell armaments to other countries, is a mistake. It is equally a
mistake to have anything to do with sending our officers to reorganise the military equipment of any other country.
The word "economy" has come to my mind largely to mean that you economise in the things you are not interested in, and I am not going to recommend this House to economise in this, because at once the answer will be given that I would spend the money in other ways, and that is exactly what I would do. I do not believe in people telling me to economise, and then, when it comes to great military armaments, they are willing to spend large sums of money in connection with equipment for the Navy, or the Army, or the Air Force. The only hope for the world is to get disarmament, and I most cordially support the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. A. Williams) who in his maiden speech suggested as a step toward disarmament that large battleships should be abolished.
I do not profess in these naval matters to speak with the ability of the hon. Gentleman who spoke with 10 years' practical acquaintance of the subject. It seems to me that steps should be brought before the nation. The nation, I believe, is seriously desirous of reduction in armaments. I believe, in proposals of that kind, that it is our duty, in whatever part of the House we sit, to urge upon the Government that not only should they talk about disarmament, but that they should use their influence in the councils of Europe in order that there may be a real conference to rid this world of the terrible menace and dangers of another war.

Viscountess ASTOR: To listen to some of the Members on the opposite side of the House, you would think the present Government were not doing everything they could in the way of trying to establish peace, not only in Europe, but here at home. I am perfectly certain that the economy of £2,500,000 which the Admiralty have made will not satisfy some Members of the front Opposition bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but nothing will satisfy some of those Members, until you disarm the nation and arm the workers to fight against the capitalists, so we cannot hope to satisfy all of them. I do think we can congratulate the Admiralty on
making a real effort towards economy. They have done it without really impairing the efficiency of the Fleet, without reducing personnel, and have provided for a considerable increase in new construction. But, as the First Lord said, this is only possible on account of the favourable aspect of the political horizon.
I am glad this country and this Government have decided to postpone the full programme on account of this new spirit in Europe. But this new spirit in Europe seems to have knocked at some sullen hearts here at home in vain, and when one reads the speeches of those who ought to be the responsible Members of the Opposition one really is in despair, not quite in despair because we realise that many of the hon. Gentlemen talk to the gallery an amusing sort of mob oratory which they do not use here. We should be very sorry for the Leader of the Opposition, because he seems in the position of a man who is trying to plough with an ox and an ass. One Member has said that the only way to get industrial peace is by industrial war. Really, I had hoped that the War had taught us some things, and that we gain nothing by war, whether international or national. We on this side of the House, who are desperately interested in peace, can only rejoice that we have a Government that are using their heads as well as their hearts. I congratulate the Navy, and I think the First Lord is perfectly justified in saying what he said. The Admiralty have been spoken of as not considering the country as a whole. I hope other Departments will do as well as the Admiralty. We who are interested in the Navy will watch them with great interest.
I want to ask one or two questions. I will not congratulate the First Lord on saying that the welfare departments are to be reassembled. Many of us were very distressed that they were not carried straight on. The lower deck promotion is now being resumed in all branches. There are several things I regret. He says that the provision which the House of Commons voted for marriage allowances' for officers is not required. It is hardly right to say it is not required. It is better to say it is not granted. The First Lord would never have given in to this except for pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the points which an hon. Member opposite
made was that if he could not give marriage allowances, he might grant travelling expenses. We who are interested in this realise that the naval officer's wife is not in the same position as the wives of officers of other Services. She has a much more difficult position. Her husband is further away and less at home, and her position is far harder than that of the wives of officers of other Services. We are going to press forward, and I am perfectly certain we have the First Lord and Admiralty with us. It is the Treasury as usual.
I must register a protest against the new entrants into the Navy being based on the Anderson Report, which says, "All the evidence seems to show us that the pay of the naval rating was not too low in 1914." Then they go on to compare the lower deck man with an agricultural labourer. Everyone who knows anything about the Navy knows that the pay of the Navy had not been changed for 70 years, and was disgracefully low. To base a new entrant on the Anderson Report in really very misguided on the part of the Admiralty. The Navy is not what it used to be in any way; it is a much better Navy. I know no work where a person does not require a certain amount of training, but you cannot compare a man in the Navy with an agricultural labourer for two reasons: first, he has to have technical training, and, secondly, every day of his life he takes risks which the agricultural labourer seldom has to take. I do hope that the First Lord will think of this, and, when the finances of the country get a little better, he will keep to the present rate of pay. If he could see the difference in the homes of the lower deck men since they have been properly paid, he would see the advantage, not only to the Navy, but to the country The children are much better kept. It was very difficult for a sailor to have a home at all. They used to say a sailor had a home in every port. [HON. MEMBERS: "A wife!"] Well, a wife in every port. The Government give him very little encouragement to keep a wife in any port. I hope when the finances get better, we will go on paying them as we do now. It has made a very much happier and contented nation.
I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty another question. I see under Victualling Stores and Clothing
there is an increase of £102,290. I want to know whether this is intended to increase the settlement of messing allowances for officers and men serving on foreign stations. Ninepence for men and 1s. 5½d. for officers is totally inadequate, particularly on the China Station, where the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes do not exist. I hope this increase is for allowances to the men serving in foreign parts. There is also a reference to the plain clothes gratuity for naval ratings—£4,000—and I want to ask the First Lord why it is that, when naval ratings are discharged, a naval man gets 13s. 6d. in order to buy a suit, and a marine 10s 6d. Can you conceive what they would look like if they tried to leave the Service in a suit which has cost 13s. 6d. or 10s. 6d.? I hope the Navy will give them proper clothes in which to go home.
On the Vote for education there is an increase of £6,540. I am delighted at that, because I have always thought there should be better educational facilities in the Navy, but I am sorry to see that the cost of vocational training is the same. These correspondence classes are very pleasant and useful, but they will not train a man coming from the Navy to enter civil life, and as it is possible that many men will in the future leave the Navy at 40 years of age, I think it would be better if there were some period of intensive practical training before they are discharged. It would be a great advantage in inducing proper men to enter the Navy and would save the country a great deal when they leave it. Then there is a question about machinery. The propelling and power machinery is designed and installed by private contractors. Granted that these engines are best supplied by firms who have specialised in some particular type and employ a skilled staff, I think the First Lord might consider whether it is possible for the main engines to be made in the dockyards from designs by the dockyard staff, or from designs obtained from outside firms. I am advised that there is really a possibility in this direction, and I am sure the First Lord realises the lamentable plight of men who are discharged from the dockyards. I want to congratulate the First Lord on what he has done for the Navy and for the nation. Some of the things for which we have been pressing a long time in Plymouth have been done.
Before I sit down may I say a word to hon. Members of the Opposition? When they talk about the peace of the world, I hope they will remember that peace can only come through order, and order only comes through control. When they talk about disarmament in Europe they must not expect England only to disarm. The position taken up by this country has done more than anything else to bring peace throughout the world. I rejoiced at the Washington Conference, and I should rejoice at a further disarmament conference, but I agree with an hon. Member on the opposite side, that it is no use calling "peace" when there is no peace. There is very little peace in some parts of the House, and there is certainly less peace in Europe to-day. We shall not bring peace about simply by crying for "disarmament"; we must get the rest of the world to follow our example. I hope and pray that they will, but it is very difficult, for in this Debate there is the suggestion from one section of the House that the Government are building Singapore as a menace to Japan. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members who say "Hear, hear!" do not know anything about the Washington Conference. Japan was there and knew it perfectly well; but Japan never said a word. The enemies of peace are those at home who will not give their own people the credit for as high motives as people they have never seen.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Noble Lady has not been able to resist the temptation to deliver her usual homily to the Socialist party, but she forgot that she is a Member of the party which has only laid down two cruisers a year, and was attacking a party which laid down five. The Noble Lady, with great versatility, has touched upon a wide diversity of subjects, and so far she has performed a useful purpose. She has reminded this House that it is not only concerned with armaments and ships, but is also concerned with the welfare and comfort of the personnel. I do not propose to deal at any length with that aspect of the question, except to say that this, indeed, has been a very unfortunate year in the history of the Navy. It was with some surprise, listening to the speech of the First Lord, that I heard no reference to subjects of the
most vital concern to the Navy as a whole. During the past year they have been deprived of their marriage allowance, the pay of the men has been reduced, the scale of their pensions is under consideration, two great dockyards have been closed with scarcely any notice, and the men are being pitched like sacks of coal into the constituency I represent without any provision being made for their accommodation. I am only going to refer to this aspect of the situation for one moment, but I do ask the First Lord to realise his responsibility as an employer of labour, whether that labour be upon the high seas or concerned with the building of ships.
It has been one of the most unfortunate features of our industrial civilisation that it has permitted towns to grow up in which the homes of the people are allowed to remain in a particularly insecure and insanitary state. But the dockyard towns belong entirely to the Admiralty, and the First Lord should know that those who are manning the ships of the Navy and their families are living in the most disgraceful conditions. It is nothing short of brutality to heap more people into the town I represent, where there are streets after streets of houses into which the rain pours and saturates the whole of the furniture in the home. I hope the First Lord will direct his attention to this matter. Such conduct would not be tolerated from any employer of labour, and I hope he will consider utilising the machinery of the dockyards in order to construct steel houses or make some other provision for the labour and the domestic comfort of his own employés. All these economies have been rendered necessary because we can no longer afford to maintain ourselves in the condition of efficiency which used to be our pride. We have not the money, and, consequently, not only has construction suffered, but personnel has suffered as well; and the reason why we cannot afford to maintain ourselves in adequate security is that the Dominions are not paying a proper contribution towards the Imperial Navy.
I want to ask what steps he has taken in the past year to consult the Dominions on this matter. The burden on the British taxpayer is absolutely intolerable, as compared with the burden on the Dominions. These are the figures which
I got out this afternoon for the current year. The expenditure per head of the population of every British citizen in respect of the Navy is 26s. l0d.; the expenditure per head of every Canadian is 15 cents, of very Australian 13s. 2d.—I am glad to say that is an increase of 5s. on the contribution of last year. New Zealand pays 8s. per head of population, and the Union of South Africa, Is. 9d. It is perfectly ludicrous to suppose that this little Island can continue to bear the whole expense of a Navy which is designed for Imperial needs, and I want to know whether this matter is from time to time discussed with the Dominions. Do they make any suggestions as to how the Empire should be defended, and, if they make these suggestions, is there anybody empowered to ask them what steps they are going to take in order to help us to perform these services? Whether you take per head of the population, or in proportion to the overseas trade of each of these Dominions, you will find that the British taxpayer is bearing a load which he cannot properly be expected to bear. I consider that point is of such great importance that I hope to hear that some steps are going to be taken in this direction. It is not until we are getting our proper contribution from the Dominions that we shall be able to have an adequate defence force in this country, or be able to spend on armaments and personnel the sums of money which they require in the national interest.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words
this House regards with great concern the vast expenditure upon the Navy and the development of the submarine, and, being of opinion that all such expenditure in preparations for warfare is wasteful and futile, calls upon His Majesty's Government to set an example to the world by bringing about a policy of disarmament through the League of Nations.
This Amendment is not a proposal for a reduction of armaments. It is a proposal to obtain the support of the Government for a call upon the representatives of other nations as well as our own to confront squarely the complexity of this problem as a whole. In previous Debates in this House reference has been made
to the futility of the submarine and aero-plane to secure the defence of this country, which is said to be the object of the whole of our armaments.
Before I touch that particular phase of the matter, it is just as well to face the fact that the figures have risen. In 1923–24 they were £54,000,000; in 1924–25 they were £56,000,000; and in 1925–26 they were £60,500,000. That is a steady advance. It is said by the First Lord that he is providing to-day what for the present shows a reduction, but, as the "Times" has this week put it, it is a question of placing on short commons the present requirements of the Navy in order to build up the Navy of the future. The "Times" in the same article makes specific reference to the Admiralty Headquarters and the cost thereof as being the despair of the economist. The £1,220,000 which it represents now is nearly three times the sum voted before the War. Lord Derby quite recently, in referring to another subject, said:
If there is any question of saving a regiment or a cruiser by encroaching on the Road Fund, I do not hesitate to say that I am for that encroachment. I am for the efficiency of the Empire before the maintenance of any particular Fund.
I am satisfied that the policy which we and other nations are pursuing involves us in a vicious circle which, unless we smash through it, will bring about the absolute collapse, not only of our own nation, but of other nations of the world. I have here some quotations which deal with that particular phase of the question—the futility of what are called our up-to-date arms. We have had a speech from the other side—I understand it was a maiden speech—to the effect that what we need is up-to-date arms. I am satisfied that the Government are going on that line. They are prepared to expend money. There is a little retarding of the procedure now, but it is going on. Up-to-date arms are to be provided. There is one thing certain as a result, and that is that the people are to be entirely out-of-date as a whole. I like to think of the efficiency of the Empire as it confronts all of us in the queues as they stand at the Employment Exchanges. In following this discussion I am trying to imagine what the Government could possibly contemplate as being meant by the efficiency of the Empire. Visualise the man who comes to the Bar
of the House on behalf of his wife and family and says: "Give me proof of the efficiency of the Empire."
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to those vicious weapons, the aeroplanes, and what they may be able to bestow as blessings upon man, woman and child in the next war. The argument appears to be that what we have to keep in view is that the Navy must ensure protection for the stomach, or rather of provisions for the stomach. I take it on that basis. The answer of the Government to 1,300,000 unemployed people, representative of three or probably four times that number, is: "We have practically no defences for the Empire so far as you are concerned. We have not any work for you to do. We have no intention of expending specialised funds in order to guarantee you a chance to earn your daily bread. We have no possibility of giving you that chance for the present or for years to come. All the millions that we are now expending on the Army or armaments in general will mean nothing to you so far as providing requisites for the stomach are concerned." You cannot expect a body of people to get very enthusiastic about your ideas, about the efficiency of armaments, on that. They say: "Will you please provide something for our stomachs? As a result of a vacuum there, I feel my heart becoming somewhat weak. How would you feel yourself?" There is a vein of humour in it, but tragedy behind it.
If you tell me that you feel quite satisfied yourself, if you say that it is essential and imperative to provide these powerful weapons which guarantee death to multitudes, then I ask, if that is your one strong position, how can you be surprised that there are sections of the people in this country—to whom the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) made reference in her speech—who are restless and discontented, and are convinced that you are right. God forbid that it should be so! I stand against it. I am not simply backing a resolution which talks to the League of Nations. I back quite frankly, as I have done before, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), what proves, so far as we are concerned, that we stand straghtforwardly for complete disarmament.
It was pointed out recently by the "Daily Herald" that the first Dreadnought was launched at Portsmouth. We then had 40 battleships and 35 armoured cruisers, while Germany, our only serious rival at sea, had 20 battleships and eight armoured cruisers. Our Dreadnought by creating a new standard of fighting power made our 75 ships as obsolete as galleons, and thus gave Germany the opportunity of beginning a naval building race on level terms. The nation had been told that its first Dreadnought would give the British Navy a permanent advantage over all rivals. The Fisher school said that Germany would be out of the running, because of the prohibitive cost enlarging the Kiel Canal, then too small to accommodate Dreadnoughts. I immediately, however, Germany began building Dreadnoughts and also the eight years' job of enlarging the canal. As far as that was concerned we came to the grand climax in the great War—the War for righteousness, the War for holiness, "the War to end war." The first two statements were blasphemous. We condemned the Kaiser because he claimed to have God operating on his side. We condemned the German Armies because of their singing "Germany over all," apparently oblivious all the time that we had been in the habit of singing "Rule Britannia." I am trying to show that the one thing produces the other. There is not a move that you can make or that any other country can make, but that it has to be checkmated. There is no way out on the basis of armaments. We hear a great deal about Locarno. That has become a blessed word like "Mesopotamia." But what is to come out of Locarno, when as is shown by that great climax to which I have just referred, we make all our arrangements on the ground that we can only secure our safety by the strength of our arms? All the time we are paying the penalty and other nations are paying the penalty of this policy. It is a situation enough to make angels weep, and devils laugh. Reference has been made to Washington and we have been told,
The accord reached at Washington only affected battleships, and one unforeseen result had been to precipitate a race in the building of cruisers, and, to a lesser extent, of submarines.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), in a pre-
vious discussion, made it very clear that so far as battleships were concerned he would wipe out the lot. If a pacifist were to make a proposition of that kind it would be regarded as very much out of place. The hon. and gallant Member also said that if operating 3,000 miles from our base our own Fleet, even with the Japanese Fleet and the American Fleet, would be unable to produce effective results. In a most interesting article which I read recently the hon. and gallant Member discussed the question, "Should the submarine be abolished?" In that article he tells us that in 1797 submarines were suggested by Professor Fulton, and that Pitt, then Prime Minister, appointed a Commission. Admiral Earl St. Vincent, the First Lord, opposed the development in emphatic language, saying Pitt was the greatest fool that ever existed to encourage a mode of warfare, which those who had the command of the seas did not want, and which, if successful, would deprive them of it. That action, according to the hon. and gallant Member, undoubtedly postponed submarine development for nearly 100 years. Then the hon. and gallant Member added:
It was quite unpardonable for the Kaiser to decree unrestricted warfare and foul the fair name of a fine weapon when used for the first time in a great war.
Is not that beautiful language? Of course, anything that the Kaiser might have touched at that time was certain to be foul. All the atmosphere round Germany was then supposed to be representative of the nethermost regions, but as for ourselves and our Allies we were a people arrayed in robes of righteousness. The hon. and gallant Member in his article proceeded:
I feel confident the best German submarine commanders bold the same opinion as I do, of unrestricted warfare being a step back to the manners of barbarism.
I have no hesitation in saying that the barbarians have superior credentials, compared with those who support Governments in the use of a machine of this kind. Take the case of the M.1. Talk about steel houses. Here was a steel trap, the men in which had no hope of escape, and the first people to come to their rescue were the wicked Germane. Let us face the situation frankly, and see whether or not we are entitled to make any criticism
of the barbarian. The barbarian is not conscious of doing anything out of the normal in pursuing methods of violence. That is his usual habit. He is commonly addicted to attacking his fellow man, and sometimes goes the length of eating him, but here we find in the statement presented to-day by the First Lord of the Admiralty that elaborate research is being carried out by his Department and the finest brains are being applied to the discovery of the readiest way and the most effectual plan of wiping out humanity on a large scale. Are we to be told that that is merely barbarism? The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford also denies any acts by the Allies inconsistent with the laws of war and the dictates of humanity. As I asked him in a friendly conversation which we had on the subject: Who are the jurors who determine the laws of warfare?
Are these laws determined by a Judge such as the Judge who tried a case the other day in which Sir Edward Marshall Hall appeared and who with the black cap on his head condemned a man in the dock to be hanged by the neck until he was dead, because he had taken the life of a fellow man. Sir Edward Marshall Hall, who defended that prisoner—a Chinaman—said we were the only civilised people who did not acknowledge degrees in murder. With all deference to that distinguished representative of the legal profession, I take exception to his statement. We do recognise degrees in murder. That is what we are discussing now. When a man acting under the orders of his Government takes the life of his fellow man he is not sentenced by a Judge or a jury. Very often, in proportion to the number of lives he takes, medals are placed upon his breast as tokens of appreciation for his success in the degree of murder which is recognised internationally as the only way of settling our differences. It is an appalling situation. Is this the result of the trend of Christianity and science? I do not speak of the science which is engaged in discovering methods of death. I refer to the science which is trying to eradicate cancer and get down to the cause of tuberculosis, and discover the agencies which are decimating the human race. Yet here is a fixed policy which is counteracting all that science can do in that respect.
The Minister of Health might put forward his best efforts, his Department might be utilised to the widest possible extent to discover means for uplifting the human race phsically and mentally, but here we have a fixed policy of Governments and parties, a sort of political Calvinism, which determines our future, and we are told it cannot be otherwise—"human nature being what it is." That is the phrase we hear on every side. Doctors argue and in some cases are able to show to the patient's satisfaction, that by taking the elements of a given disease and introducing it to the human system, a cure of that disease may be effected. Here we have a different process.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the Navy Estimates.

8.0 P.M

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I was only trying to illustrate my argument, and I was led into that line of discussion by previous references, but I recognise the necessity for restricting it. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford also tells us that when the submarine A.1 went under, Lord Fisher ordered further manœuvres to be carried out and continued the construction of vessels of an improved type. That was Lord Fisher's way of dealing with an accident of this nature, and according to the hon. and gallant Member, it was "a good way, too." The hon. and gallant Member, in the article to which I refer, also mentions the statement made by the chairman of Lloyds, advocating the abolition of this deadliest weapon of destruction. The chairman of Lloyds wrote:
All the great maritime nations have suffered heart-breaking losses by this deadly machine which treacherously destroys those in charge of it, and inflicts slow torture as well as death.
The hon. and gallant Member's comment on this statement is:
Our submarines are the best in the world, our gallant officers and men in that service are most highly trained, and they do not like this sort of sob-stuff.
We have heard great appreciations of the personnel of the Fleet and no one is going to make any deduction from those appreciations, but I think it is not doing justice to these men to say that they, as prospective victims of this machine, would regard a statement of the kind I
have quoted as "sob-stuff." The hon. and gallant Member has a Golden Rule of his own. The Golden Rule that he commends to the men is not "Trust in God,' but "Trust your boat." Sir Alfred Hopkinson, K.C., plumps for Prohibition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members must not get excited—

Mr. SPEAKER: Really, I called the hon. Member to move an Amendment for which he obtained first place in the Ballot, and he has been half an hour without coming to it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am at this stage, Mr. Speaker, quoting Sir Alfred Hopkinson on the question of totally prohibiting the submarines, which is part of the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought it was the other Prohibition !

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is why I made the interjection to hon. Members opposite not to get excited. I stopped at the word "Prohibition," for the sake of humour, but I was keeping to the water all the time. I want now to concentrate as much I possibly can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am moving an Amendment, for which I have obtained first place in the Ballot, and I have not taken much more time than some other Members who have been speaking on general propositions. I am putting the case forward in special circumstances, and I, therefore, ask for the consideration of the House. Besides, some of us do not talk as often as others, and when you come out first in the Ballot, you are entitled to some consideration. You have to wait a good while for it, and I have no prospect of ever becoming a Front Bench man. I will continue my quotations. Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard says:
The aeroplane is the most offensive weapon yet invented, but a shockingly bad weapon of defence.
That is considered to be a separate subject of discussion, but it is still a part of the Estimates, as we have an Air Ann in the Navy, and here we have a declaration by such an authority that it will not really be an effective defensive weapon, yet it is considered to be the most essential in view of the kind of war that we are going to have to face. I find
these declarations in "Naval Defence," a publication issued by the Navy League:
'It is upon the Navy that, under the good providence of God, the wealth, prosperity, and the peace of these islands and of the Empire do mainly depend.' … The British Navy is at present suffering from the post-War reaction from war-time enthusiasm, and there are even some who consider that the days of war are over, and that the last titanic struggle has exhausted the world, and has tought it the futility of armed forces for the settlement of international disputes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That is the Navy League, so that I am perfectly correct in my diagnosis of the case. They say also:
It is a fallacy to suppose that we shall be given due warning of the next war.
These are fatal pronouncements for the British Navy, coming from a quarter that knows. God knows more than the Navy or the Admiralty, and there are some things that God above knows now about the methods of the Admiralty in regard to some great questions that took place during the War. Here is another quotation, from a Navy League pamphlet, setting forth the "Peace duties of the Royal Navy of Great Britain," among which are:
Civilisation of remote places and the bringing under law of native tyrants.
Native tyrants? Where are the tyrants that are to be sought for by the Navy? In Japan, China, India? It could not possibly be here. There is no prospect of that. All is "Peace, perfect peace here. Another peace duty of the Navy is:
Suppression of piracy and the slave trade; the British Navy has been the chief instrument in this work, and still continues it—e.g., Persian Gulf. 
What about the British flag having to make its escape when the American Navels chasing it to see what is under the flag? I am told, and we are told—andthe generality of us, I suppose, profess to believe it—on the highest authority that "The meek shall inherit the earth, "but it is a matter for serious consideration whether—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. What have the meek to do with submarines?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am waiting for the development of the argument.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so considerate in wait-
ing, but the hon. Member opposite is uneasy about the meek. I go the length of saying that if this or any great nation were to take its stand on the strength of that proposition, and disband entirely its armaments, that nation would be far better provided with defence than anything it could get on the lines now being followed. We were asked during the War: "What would you do if the Germans came?" If you engage in war, then, of course, there is no saying what is going to happen, and in a certain sense it is perhaps an advantage that man, woman, and child, old, middle-aged, and young, are going to have to face the next war, and that we are not going to have old men pushing young men to the business, but old men are going to get a share of it. In Buckingham Palace, or anywhere else, where they sit watching the clock at 12 o'clock to see whether the blow is to be struck, they may get it before that hour is struck.
But what is going to happen when you are not at war? If this nation said: "We are not going to war; we are not going to fight; we are not going to kill; we have no object of that kind in view," would it not be well? Should not the Church take that position? If the Navy League itself quotes in its first declaration a recognition of and a trust in God, with the ultimate idea that they will use the Navy to make up for the weaknesses of God Almighty, what about the Church? If the Church professes that God Almighty is sufficiently stronger than all the armaments, the frail, weak instruments that man can produce, should not the Church take its stand and declare that that is its position, even though we do go to war? I submit that it is a national scandal to the Church of Christ that ministers should be available for going to hound young men whom they have taught "Thou shalt not kill," on to a hell upon earth. Viscount Cecil, in his latest appeal concerning the League of Nations, says that it is not sufficient that we should be urgent to disarm, but that the people themselves should rise and pronounce their determination in the matter. Here are his actual words:
It is vitally important that there should be in this country a great and instructed public opinion in favour of disarmament, and not merely in favour, but burningly in favour, so burningly as to set the Continent of Europe alight.
To start here with the burning operations is a stiff job. This is an ice store, but we have got to break through. It is not, as the hon. Lady opposite said, that we can only talk about disarmament if other nations talk about disarmament, and that we can only disarm if other nations are prepared to disarm. Is that the position of professed Christianity, that we can only be Christians if other nations will be Christians? Is it only possible for us to stand for Christ if other people are going to do so? Were those who are recognised to-day as martyrs fools? No. To-day we recognise them as martyrs, and we all appreciate them and glorify them, but we are called upon to be fools to-day for Christ's sake. Is He a Prime Minister upon whom we can depend? Is He a factor that can lead us in the paths of righteousness and peace? Is it true that we get, in God's own Book, that
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God"?
Have we forgotten God? Is there evidence on every hand that the general stand of the people is that after the War there is no indication of realistic holiness or righteousness in the operation of our public reputation throughout the land? It is not a question of whether other people are going to do this, that, or the other thing. I submit that, in presenting this Resolution, I am delivering a message that I feel, as Viscount Cecil put it, burningly, and not only do I feel it, but I shall vote for it, and I ask and urge everyone to make that impression in every part of the country with all the influence that they can command.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am very pleased to be on this subject in the same company as the hon. Member and Viscount Cecil, whose declaration he has quoted. I am not prepared with a speech on this subject, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) himself has made two speeches, one on his own behalf and one on mine. My duty will be simply to second the Resolution formally, and to be allowed to say very briefly that on the ground of expenditure alone, which is mentioned in the first sentence of the Resolution, this subject of naval armaments merits the attention of this House. There have been this afternoon other
speakers who have given comparative figures showing the enormous increase in expenditure in recent years. The hon. Member's Amendment is designed to call attention not only to the present expenditure, but to increased expenditure, unless we take steps to divert expenditure from the competitive race in armaments. The use of submarines is a particularly objectionable form of armament. It is the most inhuman form of armament that the world has known so far.
It is, possibly, not the last word in inhumanity, but the average cleanminded man does regard the submarine as a weapon not fit even for times which called forth the extreme combative instincts of man. I have no detailed knowledge of our own submarine position or of submarine building in other countries, but I do know there is a very keen and a very menacing rivalry between ourselves and our Continental neighbours in the provision of submarines, which, if anything, is likely to lead to a breach of peace anywhere in the immediate future. There is nothing so dangerous as the use of the submarine to prevent food supplies being carried from distant parts of the earth to this country. We, in our geographical position, surrounded by the sea, can never be quite safe in a competitive struggle for submarine supremacy by nations of approximate economic power, and we can never maintain our large sea communications with the facility that some other countries can maintain theirs. On these grounds, the House should pay attention to the growth of expenditure, and to the risks of our position in the provision of submarines. I would prefer to come to the last sentence of all in the Amendment:
calls upon His Majesty's Government to set an example to the world by bringing about a policy of disarmament through the League of Nations.
This question merits much more attention than I can give it. There is a very grave danger facing the whole of the civilised world to-day. Rivalry in submarine armaments, rivalry in air armaments, rivalry in territorial and economic ambitions are driving the world nearer every day to inevitable conflict, and it is only by the minds of the people of the world being applied to this question of disarmament through the League of Nations that
this haunting menace of war can be removed. We have a conference at Geneva this week. The League of Nations can never be an effective instrument for the control of international affaire until we can go there with clean hands and minds free for the greater problem of guaranteeing peace. We cannot go to Geneva if we are surreptitiously piling up submarine armaments either against France, Italy or Germany. We cannot go to the League of Nations with any expectation of making that League what it might be if we go with a full knowledge, not only that we ourselves but that other nations are trying to build up armaments. Civilisation is impossible while we have this war cloud hovering over our heads all the time, and it is imperative that we should endeavour to bring about disarmament if civilisation is to be maintained. Without having prepared a speech, and without having intended to speak, I wholeheartedly commend this Amendment to the House, because I believe the contents of this Amendment are most deserving of the attention of every Member of this House, of the British public outside and of the public and Parliaments of the whole world.

Major GLYN: I am sure the whole House listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), because we recognised his sincerity, although at times it was a little difficult to follow his argument. I rise to-night to ask the attention of the House to the suggestion that there should be a reconsideration of the political organisation governing the administration of the three Services. This proposal, I think, has been welcomed from all quarters of the House, but, in particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Salisbury Committee's Report, because it is no use dealing in generalities; we must rather get down to particulars. That Committee stated, among other things, that
The present system makes no authority directly responsible for the initiation of a consistent line of policy directing the common action of the three Services, and taking into account the reactions of the three Services upon one another, except the Prime Minister, who can only devote a very small part of his time to questions of defence.
If that is the recommendation of an ad hoc committee set up for this purpose, I think it should deserve the atten-
tion of this House, because we do not want to add to Ministries, but we want to see that the money voted by the taxpayer for all purposes of defence is spent in the best way to provide for the defence of this country and the British Empire. We have had experience in recent years of difficulties which have arisen as between the Air Force and the Admiralty, and difficulties which have arisen in the past in regard to transportation between the Navy and the Army. I think that the last War taught all of us the great advantaies of co-operation, and the necessity of the staffs of the three Services working together.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): There is an Amendment before the House with regard to disarmament. I do not quite understand that the hon. and gallant Member's argument deals with that Amendment.

Major GLYN: I understood the discussion was going to be allowed to be general on this point, and I am speaking to the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. I understood from the Chair that discussion would be allowed on it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Possibly when I was not here some general agreement might have been made. I am not sure. But the position at present is that we have a specific Amendment, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment will not be relevant to that.

Major GLYN: I quite agree, but I thought that I should be in order in dealing with the Motion which stands in my own name on the Paper. I thought I could bring it into line with the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee, and for this reason: that all of us on this side of the House are just as anxious as any Member on the opposite side to see less money spent on defence by the civilised nations. But we believe that if you have not got a proper system of expenditure on defence, the chances are that a small nation with relatively less money, may be able to be a great danger to this country's trade by constructing a small fleet of submarines. It is because this country has taken the lead at the Disarmament Conference in Washington and elsewhere in urging upon the nations to agree to a reduction of armaments that we believe that by establishing a common general staff
under the direction of the Minister who will be responsible to the Prime Minister it will be far more easy for all the nations to agree upon a common policy of disarmament.
If you get the three Services each working against the other it is infinitely more difficult to arrange a common policy of disarmament. Nobody on the other side, I am sure, would suggest that unless we were perfectly certain that our trade and our defence would be safeguarded ! It is obviously ridiculous that a country like our own, which depends for its existence entirely upon sea-borne traffic, should rely upon any new arm, even the Air Force. Look at the map and realise the number of points where you could establish aerodromes, and, taking a radius of 200 miles, how many thousands of miles of the sea routes, of our transport of food by ships, would be exposed to the danger of an attack by enemy submarines! The hon. Member for Dundee, in his very eloquent and lengthy speech, does seem to realise one point; that it is very easy for a small nation which means mischief secretly to construct submarines which would do irreparable damage to a great country like our own.
There is one thing we can undoubtedly say, and that is that we have set the lead in desiring disarmament, and that when we came to the conclusion we did at Washington we really carried out what we said we would do. It does seem tome, when we have set the lead in this way, that we have a right to claim that France should carry out her promise. We all hope from the benefits which will be conferred by the League of Nations we shall gradually get that peace idea which will enable nations in common to agree to a certain amount of disarmament. With great respect I would, if I may, once again urge that we should not consider these problems of defence in water-tight compartments, the Air, the Sea, the Land. The whole of the defences since the War generally have been drawn together because each Service must be inter-dependent on the other. If, therefore, we are going to do anything to carry out what the hon. Member for Dundee—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not at all sure that the hon. and gallant Gentle-
man can go into that at all. We are now busy with the Navy Estimates, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must direct his attention as to whether they are sufficient or redundant.

Major GLYN: I have endeavoured, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to keep within the limits of your ruling in pointing out that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Dundee was to the effect that there should be a reduction in a certain branch of the defensive armament of the country. I am trying to point out that it is very bad to concentrate upon one particular Service, when to get real disarmament we have to consider the whole scope of the general defensive measures. Therefore, I should like, in conclusion, to say that I do agree absolutely with the theory expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee. I would urge upon the recognition of all that we have already taken the lead in this business of disarmament, and until other nations follow our lead, I am not prepared to place this country, with all its responsibilities, in such a position that it might be unfairly attacked by an unscrupulous nation which might be unwilling to carry out the pledges it gave at an international conference.

Mr. CLUSE: I should very much like to be able to support the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley for total disarmament and the rest; but unfortunately there are reasons which prevent me from doing so. The Amendment seems to me quite a legitimate attempt to concentrate interest in this House, in the country and abroad, upon what is necessary for disarmament among the nations. Some people are brave enough, or foolish enough, to suggest that this country could disarm. I have great respect for that opinion and that point of view, but I cannot support it. It does seem to me, when we remember the promises of peace that were put forward after the Armistice, the statements made during the War that the struggle would be the last struggle and the last war—when, I say, we think of these statements we think also of where we find ourselves in the years since the War, still piling up armaments, still creating with other countries an armed camp on the Continent—practically throughout the world.
We often in this House hear arguments about economy; statements that
rates and taxes ought to be reduced in order that our captains of industry may be able more effectively to compete' in the markets of the world. When these suggestions of economy are referred to, and the cost of the social services, very rarely, in my judgment, is pointed out one of the strongest or greatest means of decreasing the production cost to the country. I refer to the cost of the Navy and the other Services. We go on from year to year spending this tremendous amount of money which, unfortunately, always seems to me to be leading to an attempt to "try out" new methods which can best be put forward when declaring war. All over Europe we have populations crying out for peace. We have Christians of all denominations officially believing in peace. I hope they do believe in peace. Every country is being brought, into the position of almost inevitable bankruptcy by the great cost of armaments. And it seems to me that the time has come when we must beg all other nations to sit round a table with us at the Conference of the League of Nations, and hammer out methods of cutting down this tremendous expenditure which is ham-stringing the nations of the world.
We have also to remember—I do not suggest that we are the only people who think of it—the needs of the country. We walk through the streets of London. We see boys and girls coming out of school-and thank goodness they look better than they used to do. We see the bright kiddies and we look at them with pleasure. Yet we have to remember that the cost of armaments is doing harm to them and their education, and that possibly these children, whom we love to look at, may in the future be driven into that blood-bath that some of us have been in, while others have died for their country. We are not attacking any legitimate ideas of patriotism. We are not saying that people should not fight for what they believe in, if necessary, but we do say that all over the world people are tired of war, that all over the world people have got photographs at home of those who died in the great War. I appeal to hon. Members to support the Amendment as one who is not an ultra-pacifist, but one who does want to see universal peace, and thinks it can be obtained upon the lines of this Amendment, by urging the nations of the world
to sit down together and hammer out the possibilities of peace by the reduction of the burden of armaments.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think the House ought to register a protest against the action of the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) because, after taking 55 minutes to move his Amendment, he does not trouble to wait to hear the reply to it.

Mr. BARKER: On a point of Order. May I say that the hon. Member has been called out of the House by one of his constituents?

Mr. SCYRMGEOUR: I have come back.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The hon. Member is back now, but I do not think he was back a moment ago. Now that he has returned, I would like to ask him if he has ever read of Pizarro's conquest of Peru? In his speech he stated that he objected to all kinds of armaments. I wonder if has ever read the history of the Incas, when Pizarro, with 150 men, practically conquered a whole nation?

Mr. HARDIE: A defenceless nation.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Yes, that is the whole point—a defenceless nation. I was wondering whether he would like to see the British Empire, and this country in particular, and the women and children about whom he delights in giving us streams of sob stuff, placed in the same position as those Incas were when Pizarro conquered Peru.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What about the Argentine and Chile?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Well, what about Argentine and Chile?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Did they settle without fighting at all?

Lieut. Commander BURNEY: I am not arguing as to whether two nations equally well armed and equally able to defend themselves will not settle without fighting. It is often the case in a legal action that when neither side knows it is going to win, that both sides are usually ready to settle out of Court; but when one side has an unanswerable case, it is very unlikely it will agree to settle out of Court, but will demand the maximum
damages. Equally so is it in war: if one nation is entirely unarmed and another nation is armed, it is quite certain that the armed nation will practically subjugate the other nation into practical slavery, economic or otherwise.

Mr. HARDIE: Not a Christian nation.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not mind whether it is a Mohammedan nation or a Christian nation, or what kind of nation. We have got to realise that human nature is human nature, and if people can obtain an advantage, they usually obtain it, just as a trade union will utilise its power to upset the whole life of a community in order to extract from another section, the employers, advantages which it is endeavouring to obtain. It has no regard for the women and children in that case. It is using its power to hold the nation up for ransom.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think this is one of those illustrations which tend to go a little too far.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I have been led away from my point by the Argentine and Chile being brought into the discussion; I do not think either of them have any submarines at all. A point this House should consider is that the senior Member for Dundee said in his speech that although he was moving this Amendment he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), that although his Amendment asked only for the abolition of submarines, he entirely agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: My Amendment is not merely for the abolition of submarines, it is for disarmament as a whole.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not think that is what the Amendment says. I will read the Amendment, as the hon. Member does not appear to understand it. It is:
That this House regards with great concern the vast expenditure upon the Navy"—

Mr. J HUDSON: Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I dare say the hon. Member agrees with that.
—and the development of the submarine, and, being of the opinion that all such
expenditure in preparations for war is wasteful and futile, calls upon His Majesty's Government to set an example to the world by bringing about a policy of disarmament through the League of Nations.
That is rather different from proposing that the British Navy be reduced from a force of 102,000 men to 2,000 men. This Amendment calls for a policy of disarmament through the League of Nations, and it is viewed differently by the leaders of the hon. Member's own party, although he may not be aware of it, because the hon. Member who spoke for the Labour Opposition earlier in the evening said the Labour party were going to support the Amendment of the senior Member for Dundee but not going to support that of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. Although the difference in the Amendments may not be apparent to the senior Member for Dundee, it is evidently apparent to the leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] He may not be the leader of the hon. Member. I do not understand the internal organisation of the Labour party, but that is what the hon. Member said when he spoke for the Opposition.
Although the Opposition are officially going to support this Amendment, it is perfectly evident that in the minds of the majority of their supporters the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has the same effect and will, in fact, do the same as this Amendment. It looks as though the Labour party, as a whole, are attached to the idea of doing away with the British Navy entirely. I will go further than that and say that a very large number of Members on the other side of the House appear to think that because they do not like war they can get rid of it by calling it bad names. They cannot. The fact that other nations may make war upon us is the only reason which necessitates the Government of this country making preparations for war. It is really childish for speeches of that kind to be made upon the basis of this nation disarming in front of the whole world. No responsible Government of any kind could contemplate or allow such a thing to happen. It was quite obvious that when the Labour party were in power they had no conception of allowing anything of that kind to take place.
Now let me turn to the question of the abolition of the submarine. I put it to
the House that Amendments of this character are detrimental to the best interest of this nation. There is no competent naval authority in this country who does not desire that the submarine should be done away with because it is very detrimental to the naval power of this country that a submarine exists, but that fact does not help us to obtain its abolition. This nation is the one nation which suffers most from the menace of the submarine, and we are the nation that is continually advocating its abolition. In this respect there is nothing more futile than that which the hon Member for Dundee is doing, and by the action he is taking he is making it quite certain that the submarine will not be abolished. The more this kind of Amendment is moved the more likely it is that the submarine will remain a weapon attached to all the Fleets in the world.
The hon. Member for Dundee says that even if the other nations do not take the lead in this matter there is no reason why we should not lead the way, but why not do away with the whole British Navy? We know that the real meaning or the idea which the hon. Member for Dundee has in mind is not to do away with submarines, but with the whole British Navy, and he would like to abolish it as well as the Army and the Air Force and the police. He might also wish to do away with fire insurance and old age insurance and every other method which a civilised nation devises for its own protection. It is futile for these idealists to put forward Amendments of this character because they have such a parochial view that they do not realise the damage they do to the foreign outlook in regard to this country. If hon. Members wish to ensure the continuance of the submarine as a naval weapon they cannot do it more effectively than by supporting this Amendment, and if it had been moved by a group of big armament firms who wanted contracts I agree that this is the way to do it.
I will take another point which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee. The hon. Member stated that this Government should show some signs that it was ready to consider a disarmament policy. Is the hon. Member not aware that as a result of the Locarno meeting it was arranged that there should be a meeting to consider disarmament last
February, and it has been postponed until May. The present Government has always been ready and anxious to attend that meeting, and therefore what purpose is served by pushing at an open door. It is obvious that no responsible Government is going to agree to disarmament unless it is simultaneous disarmament, and it is futile to expect that any nation can disarm unless other nations agree to do the same. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Dundee, in his sober moments, expects this House to agree to a proposition of that character.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is the open door in the public-house that you are thinking about.

Lieut-Commander BURNEY: But thehon. Member for Dundee is pushing against the open door of the Locarno Agreement. I do not think that the Opposition can have appreciated what is the actual position in regard to the submarine question. At the Washington Conference Great Britain suggested that the submarines should be abolished. The United States was in favour of that abolition, but the naval powers who were not so strong in capital ships, cruisers and so forth were against the abolition of the submarine largely owing to the fact that France would not agree to the abolition of the submarine, and I think France was backed up by Italy. The idea of the abolition of the submarines which was put forward at Washington by Great Britain was turned down. Therefore what is the use of the hon. Member for Dundee moving an Amendment of this character when if he had made himself acquainted with recent history he would find that Great Britain had done everything she could in regard to the abolition of the submarine. What is the case which the Opposition are putting forward? They are really endeavouring to put forward a case for the abolition of the British Navy, but the official Opposition say that it is only an Amendment for the abolition of the submarine. The hon. Member for Dundee has already said that he wants to do away with the British Navy.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: All navies.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That is not what this Amendment says, or what the Amendment of the Member for Bow and Bromley says. We have already heard that the hon. Member for Dundee
is in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on this question, and they are willing to do away with the Navy at once without any other country doing away with their Navy. The point is that the framers of this Amendment have in mind the fact that in practice there is no difference between the Amendment they have put on the Paper and the Amendment which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has put down, and in regard to which the official Opposition are going to put their tongue in their cheek and say they will not support it. They say that they wish this country to set an example to the world. Does that not mean that we are to take the initiative and do something first? I listened to the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, but experiencing that feeling in the stomach to which the First Lord of the Admiralty has referred, I went out to get some refreshment, and I did not hear the end of it; but, from the first 45 minutes of it to which I did listen, I understood that what he wanted was that we should set an example to the world. The only method he suggested of our setting an example to the world was that we should do away with our submarines, irrespective of what other nations did. I think I am correct in my recollection of his speech, and that it will be within the recollection of the House that that is what he said. There was no question of simultaneous disarmament.
If this were an Amendment to the effect that there should be simultaneous disarmament, no Member of the House would be against it. Everyone on this side of the House realises, just as much as any Member on the other side, that all expenditure on armaments is unproductive expenditure. It is only undertaken because no other way has so far been devised of protecting our own interests as a nation. If any Resolution were put forward, at the League of Nations or elsewhere, that simultaneous disarmament was proposed and would be enforced, I do not think any Member in this House would disagree or would vote against it. Therefore, I think that this Amendment which has been moved is nothing else than a lot of cant and claptrap. It is moved in a spirit of petty parochialism, which does not realise in the least degree
the danger it is doing to the interests of this country as a whole, and all that the hon. Member has done has been to secure that submarines will continue to be built, and will be built for a great deal longer because of this Amendment that has been moved in the House to-night.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By far the best thing—of course, it would have to be done by international agreement—would be to take all the warships of the whole world into deep water, and, after a suitable religious ceremony, to 6ink them; and I gather that hon. Members opposite would agree with that policy if it were brought about by general agreement. They are very simple, however, if they think that that would ever happen. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) will excuse me for calling him simple—I mean, simple, politically—because we know that his character is really very complex; but the powers behind the party opposite would never agree to that course, because they want the Navy, in the last resort, as a strike—breaking weapon. They sent the sailors to work the pumps in the mines in a previous coal stoppage.

Commander FANSHAWE: To save the mines!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is one example. I listened, like other Members of the House, with great pleasure to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. A. Williams). I am sorry he is not here at the moment; I would like to put it on record that I and other Members of the House enjoyed his speech very much, and hope he will speak again on naval subjects. I am going to vote for the Amendment which has been moved by the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), although I shall find myself unable to support the Amendment which is to be moved presently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), because, although I shall vote for the present Amendment, I do not think we can possibly afford to abolish the British Navy until other Powers are prepared to abolish their navies as well; but I think that that might well be done in the near future.
9.0 P.M
I am also supporting this Amendment because it draws attention to unnecessary
expenditure. I am astonished, for about the seventh time, at the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty in introducing the Navy Estimates. Year after year we are told that the last economy has been made, that the Navy has been cut to the bone, and even now it is admitted that efficiency has been sacrificed. Seagoing practice has been given up, and the Navy will not be so efficient as it should be. Where is the money being spent? On unnecessary dockyards, for one thing. In spite of the reductions at Rosyth and Pembroke, the Navy is over-supplied with dockyards. The hon. Member for Dundee is perfectly right when he talks in this Amendment about unnecessary expenditure. In his defence against the irate Scots and Welsh in regard to Rosyth and Pembroke, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the reductions there would be followed by reductions in the English dockyards, and every student of naval affairs knows that we have too many dockyards' for the needs of our reduced Fleet in home waters. The Admiralty are saying that the basis of naval power is now in the Pacific, and they are going ahead with the Singapore policy. There should be compensating reductions in home dockyards.
What do we see in the First Lord's statement? Three cruisers of the "Dublin" class—the "Dublin," the "Chatham" and the "Southampton"—are to be scrapped. I see that last year, in order to provide work for these unnecessary dockyards, £72,917 was spent on the "Dublin," and that on the "Chatham" £63,691 was spent. That is to say, £136,000 was spent on these two ships, the "Dublin" and the "Chatham," which the Admiralty are now going to put on the scrap-heap. What sort of policy is this? They talk about economies and about reducing the Navy to the bone, but now I see that repairs are being undertaken on the "Dartmouth," which is a sister ship to the three vessels which are now to be scrapped, laid down a year later, in 1910. She is 16 years old, and the Admiralty's scrapping date is 20 years, and yet we are spending this year £168,380 upon her. Can anyone really defend that? This is a ship one year older than the three vessels about to be scrapped, and, in order to provide work for these unnecessary dockyards and dockyard staffs, this considerable sum is being spent.

Commander FANSHAWE: May I point out that this ship is being fitted out for wireless experiments?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All I can say is that there are many other ships which would be much more suitable, without this expenditure. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to fall back on the argument that this is a matter for the admiralty Staff. Again and again we find this wobbling policy on the part of the Admiralty Staff, and again and again criticisms in this House have been justified, and we have seen carried out certain economies which were suggested here. There are many more ships that can be used for wireless experiments without spending money on this obsolescent vessel.
I regret to say that the economies are taking place in the wrong direction. I interrupted the First Lord, during his speech, to suggest that he had actually reduced the sum to be spent on the Chemical, Experimental and Research Department, which I rather think is the most important Department of the Admiralty. The problem of modern war vessels, which are dependent on artificial ventilation, being attacked by gas, either from gas shells or from bombs dropped by aeroplanes or released by submarines, is very acute. I do not know what the Admiralty are doing to counter such a menace, but it is very serious. The more modern and faster ships are absolutely closed in, and the men below are entirely dependent on artificially induced draught. Therefore, they are a clear target for poison gas attacks. We did not have these poison gas attacks in the late War, because there was not a Fleet action after Jutland, and the German War Office gained dominance over the German Admiralty, and got control of the chemical equipment in Germany. Otherwise we should have suffered in that way then. In the next war, if ever one should come—and we have to reckon upon that, or why do we spend these vast sums upon armaments—that will be one of the problems that will have to be faced, and the Admiralty, as far as I can make out from the Estimates, are actually reducing the small sum allowed for experimental research in chemical warfare. That is a retrograde step which is much to be regretted.
Reductions are also taking place in sea training and in the Naval Air Service. After all their agitation to get control over their naval wing, the reserve of aeroplanes is being cut down. It is a short-sighted and ridiculous policy. They are not increasing, as they should do, the money on research. Where they are spending money is on keeping on the useless yacht, the "Enchantress," which they use for three weeks in the year, if at all. When they went to Malta for the last inspection they went by railway train and took the mail steamer from Messina. Of course, the cost of the "Enchantress" is small compared with the whole Navy Estimates, but it is the spirit of the thing and the discouragement to give to the other Departments to economise. It is like the £200,000 for the playing-fields for the Civil Service. They have actually more flag officers employed on shore than they have afloat. There were 27 admirals and other flag officers, including commodores, employed in shore billets against 21 employed afloat on the eighth of this month. That is one more example of the excessive expenditure on non-effective services.
What is the result? We have only two battle fleets at sea, a comparatively small Fleet of six battleships and one battle cruiser, our only home defence squadron, and a moderate Fleet in the Mediterranean for this vast expenditure, and the sea time of the Navy is being cut down. The economy takes place on oil fuel and economy takes place in the wages of the seamen and the marriage allowance of the officers. I think the Admiralty's record will not bear close examination. For these reasons, and others with which I will not trouble the House, I propose to support the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I understand that if I refer to expenditure I shall be in order in coming within the first sentence of the Amendment. I shall therefore reply to arguments which have been adduced on all sides of the House, mostly criticisms of the Admiralty in the matter of expenditure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) complains that we have spent a great deal of money on the "Dublin" and the
"Chatham," and within a very short time the Admiralty are scrapping those two vessels. The reason for this scrapping is the fact that the Admiralty have now a settled building programme, and even though we have spent a little money on these two vessels, we did not give them a large refit, and are saving a considerable sum by scrapping them, and it was an obvious course to take once we were satisfied with the programme which the House approved, and which is now in force.
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little ungrateful. His memories of the "Enchantress" ought to have burnt right into the bosom of any member of his party, for if what history relates is true, they had many a pleasant trip overseas before the War. He ought to be grateful to us for the economy we are practising by laying the ship, which I do not say is unsaleable, but would be worth very little if we did sell her, and not expending public money upon her. Criticism has been levelled against the Admiralty in the matter of the co-ordination of the various Departments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) complained that the figure for this year was not in fact a true representation of the Admiralty policy, and he compared it with the figures of 1924 to show that we were spending something like £2,000,000 more this year than in 1924. That is perfectly true, but the answer is this. The expenditure on new construction this year is £5,000,000 more than it was in 1924, and if you take that into account it is quite obvious that the savings which we claim to make are in fact true savings and the sum the First Lord gave is the correct one.
I listened with some surprise to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest). He is an ex-Minister, and he took the opportunity of delivering a calculated attack upon the naval members of the Board of Admiralty. I cannot allow that to pass without protest. They are not able to defend themselves, and he knows that perfectly well. I am sorry he is not in his place to hear what I am saying. He complained that the Estimates were extremely difficult to understand, and that we were not at all lucid, so far
as our spoken words were concerned, in our explanation of the figures. He complained of the bulk of the volume he held in his hand. The bulk of the volume is due to the fact that I believe we have met a criticism which has come year after year and a request for more and fuller information on the various topics and the subheads of the Votes. The bulk of the volume is because we are trying to do what we think is the right thing and to give the fullest information to the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is for the use of the Admiralty also.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, but we want to put all our cards on the table and give as full information as possible to the House. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) said we were living on our stores. That is not so because we are actually withdrawing from stocks about £128,000 worth less than last year. With regard to tobacco and soap, which he also criticised us for saving, we are only agents, as no doubt he knows. If the men of the Royal Navy do not buy soap or tobacco we are only agents to sell, and if there is a saving it is a voluntary saving on the part of the men and it has nothing to do with any cheese-paring policy of the Admiralty.

Mr. AMMON: You do not suggest that they are washing less?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I do not know what the reasons are, except those incidental to Supply. With regard to the Amendment, which after all is the main matter before the House, it divides itself into various parts. First it is a complaint of the growth of expenditure. It goes on to complain of the futility of expenditure on armaments, then it particularly condemns expenditure on submarines, and lastly it deals with the desirability of the Government producing a policy of disarmament through the League of Nations. I think I can best show what is the Government's view on this subject, and the subject of submarines generally, by reading to the House a statement which was made by Lord Balfour on behalf of the British Government and the British Empire:
The British Empire delegation desires formally to place on record its opinion that the use of submarines, whilst of small value for defensive purposes, leads inevitably to
acts which are inconsistent with the laws of war and the dictates of humanity, and the delegation desires that united action should be taken by all nations to forbid their maintenance, construction or employment.
That is a very categorical statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government, from which we have not in any way changed. Therefore, no complaint can justly be lodged against the Government with regard to their policy. The only complaint which hon. Members opposite may have is that we have been as unsuccessful as they were when they were in office in getting it carried out. We still adhere to that policy, and hon. Members opposite must know that at the present time we are sending representatives to Geneva to take part in preparatory work, which was initiated by the Council of the League of Nations, in order to pave the way for a Conference on the limitation of land, sea and air forces.
Therefore, I feel, and I think the House will feel, that there is something unreal about this Resolution. Rome was not built in a day. The opinions which are expressed in the Resolution so far as submarines are concerned, everybody in this country will heartily endorse, but it is obvious that, as far as that part of the Resolution goes, which says:
all such expenditure in preparations for warfare is wasteful and futile;
it is impossible for the Government and Members on this side to accept it. If ever there was an opportunity given to the world for what the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol called a naval holiday, it has been the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to submarines since the War. Since the War, there have been laid down by the United States of America, 33 submarines; Japan, 61; France, 28; Italy, 4; and the whole of the British Empire, 4. If that is a race in armaments, we ought not to have started, for we would never get a place. It is quite clear, and this applies to all the Governments that have been in power in this country since the War, that what we preached at Washington we have been practising as far as we could. But it is obvious, from the figures which I have just read that the response has not been as good as many of us would have hoped for. Therefore the Government has, with full responsibility, to consider its position and the position of the Empire and its defence,
and must decide on the policy which they believe to be the policy which gives the maximum of security with the minimum of expenditure.
Many hon. Members opposite no doubt feel, in fact they have said so, that if we disarm completely we would make such a gesture to the world that everybody else in the world would follow our example. We have had a small experiment, perhaps not a small one after all. We have been the slowest of any Power to start building ships of war of any sort since the War. Our proportion compared with the ships which have been laid down and built by other Powers is very small, when one considers the size of the Empire and its responsibilities. All the indications are such that we must look with great gravity at the position and do what we think is necessary to produce security, facing the situation as it is, and not as we would like it to be. We have therefore laid down the policy, which the House has endorsed, of a building programme.
I always feel that if hon. Members opposite—with one of whom I had not very long ago a debate on this subject—applied the same principles in their private life which they would apply to the public life of the country, they would be very sorry. I think the last thing that hon. Members opposite would do would be to cut the fire insurance on their house. The British Navy is an insurance for the trade and life of the nation. If one looks at the amount of our trade and the amount which the Navy costs to the taxpayer, it will be seen that the premium which the taxpayer pays in order to keep the security of our trade routes and an even flow of trade across the seas is small. The Navy only costs 2.69 per cent. of the whole of our overseas trade passing to and from this country.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The fire insurance premium is only 1 per cent.

Mr. DAVIDSON: That may be so, but this is not only a fire insurance, but an insurance against burglary and other things.

Mr. HARDIE: An all-in policy.

Mr. DAVIDSON: A general policy which covers everything. For these reasons, I must ask the House to resist the Resolution. The time has not yet
arrived when we can take the risk of laying our necks bare, not because there is anybody in the street ready to cut our throats, but when you are in a situation where other people have weapons in their hands, I prefer, and I am sure the House will prefer, at least to wear a collar.

Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. Member say whether the Admiralty can determine who is to be in control in case of a seaplane and an aeroplane combined action?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. It would not be competent for me to answer it. In the first place, I do not know, and, secondly, in the nature of things it must be a hypothetical question. Until we know what the circumstances of the particular action would be, it is very difficult to answer such a question.

Mr. DALTON: I confess to some disappointment at the utterances that have been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Parliamentary Secretary. The First Lord made no mention of disarmament at all in his speech. He spoke of the next War with comparative equanimity. He was chiefly concerned to know whether the blow would be at our heart or at our stomach. Since he said nothing about disarmament, I naturally hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with it in some detail, but he has not done so. I am sorry to find that there is no evidence on the part of the Government spokesmen of any really keen desire for disarmament. There are certain academic assurances about being willing to follow other people if they will take the lead, but there is no real drive to achieve disarmament. I was at Geneva last summer, and I had a humiliating experience in listening to the spokesman of the British Government—Sir Cecil Hurst—who did his best in my hearing to block every advance that was attempted by other countries towards disarmament. Sir Cecil Hurst in my hearing—it was not very fully reported in the British newspapers and perhaps I may be allowed to tell the House what he said—first of all objected even to the setting up of this Preparatory Commission to prepare the way for the disarmament conference. When he had to withdraw from that position, in the face of universal disapproval by delegates of all the other nations, he did nothing very striking in the way of
facilitating any advance in the right direction.
The question to which I would like an answer is, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has yet given any definite instruction to the naval experts under his control to prepare a bold and concrete plan which we might submit to other nations in order to secure, not unilateral disarmament, but some approach towards disarmament all round among the naval Powers of the world on a greater scale than we have yet seen? Sir Cecil Hurst said last September that one reason why we could not make any advance towards disarmament was because the naval, military, and air experts had not prepared any plan. I wish to know whether that is still true? Can the First Lord tell us whether he has instructed the naval experts of the Admiralty to prepare plans? If he does not reply, I shall assume that the statement made by Sir Cecil Hurst last September is still true, and that plans have not been begun.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it in order to criticise the utterances of a civil servant?

Mr. DALTON: I am not criticising the utterances of a civil servant but the utterances of a member of the British Delegation to the League of Nations, who on this occasion was the spokesman of the British Empire.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is to be deprecated that an hon. Member should refer in this House to those who are not able to reply.

Mr. DALTON: Let me make it quite clear for the benefit of the hon. Member for South Leicester (Captain Water-house). Sir Cecil Hurst has my commiseration. The year before last he made a very able defence of the Geneva. Protocol, acting then as spokesman of the Labour Government's Delegation. I was sorry that no political member of the British delegation had the courage to get up and face the music at this last gathering of the Disarmament Commission, and that they fobbed off the job on a civil servant who, as the hon. Member rightly said, cannot defend himself. He is a civil servant for whom I have great respect. As the First Lord has not given us any assurance that any steps are being taken to prepare the way for disarmament, I can only hope that the omission, if there
has been an omission, will be made good before the preparatory commission meets.
In advocating this Amendment I would like to submit to the House that what we are after is security. We believe that security can only come about as the result of all-round disarmament. We do not believe that disarmament will come as a result of security. We believe that you cannot have security in an armed world. If I may adopt the analogy employed by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech, I quite agree that as long as anybody is wandering about with a knife there is danger your throat may be cut. That is why we wish to enter into a general compact to get rid of knives, so that we need not wear collars on a hot day. If I may apply an analogy of a domestic kind, we all feel secure this evening because we believe that no hon. Member has a bomb in his pocket-not even the strongest advocates of naval expansion. If we did believe that any hon. Member had a bomb in his pocket, we would not feel secure even if we had two bombs, one in each pocket, because he might throw first. That is the analogy of the international situation. You have a vicious circle: every country afraid of another; the United States and Japan, the British Empire, France and Italy. That vicious circle will never be broken until we have succeeded in achieving a policy by which those five great naval Powers, and the smaller ones, scrap their armaments to the last possible degree.
When economy is so much in the air, I am amazed that there is no move on the other side of the House towards an all-round scheme of naval disarmament which would enable further reductions to be made in the Super-tax, to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue his policy in the interests of the wealthy taxpayers in this country, and to remit further burdens which press heavily on the well-to-do. When we see that the cost of the British Navy has increased from £10,500,000 in 1880 to £40,000,000 in 1910; £50,000,000 in 1914; £60,000,000—allowing something off, of course, for the rise in prices—in 1925; and only £2,000,000 less this year; and when we see there is a building programme to cost £58,000,000in addition—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who started it?"]—I am not talking about who started it, I am talking of what is the cost—to be spread over four years for an additional building programme,
and an additional £12,000,000 spread over eight or 10 years for Singapore, the opportunities there for a cut in expenditure, if we would only persuade other countries to join us in making cuts, are enormous.
To sit still and say you will be content to follow other countries is quite a new departure in British policy. It is hardly worthy of a great Power and hardly a policy which should command enthusiastic support from hon. Members opposite. We are asking here for disarmament to be brought about through the League of Nations. We believe that the League of Nations, through its permanent machinery, periodical meetings of the Council, and Assembly, is the best means at present available to the world for continually focussing public attention on this question and keeping world opinion mobilised in the interests of disarmament. The argument that the United States is not yet a member of the League has no application because the United States has agreed to participate in the preparatory commission and in the full Disarmament Conference when it comes along. I only wish we were participating not only in words but with a little more active enthusiasm and vigour.
I would further like to submit on this point, that the adherence of the United States to the League's work on disarmament suggests that one of the best ways to get the United States into the League is to give America some evidence that the League of Nations is really at last going to do something big. If this disarmament conference is active and were to result in a success it would be one of the most hopeful ways of bringing the United States into the League. It would make an appeal to the idealism of the Protestant Churches and also to the material aspirations of the American taxpayer, who would see an opportunity of a further tax reduction by a decrease in the expenditure on armaments. Something has been said on the subject of the Ministry of Defence and I think I shall not stray outside the terms of this Amendment if I say that on this point we are quite in agreement with the statement made by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, to the effect that we do need more co-ordination between the sea, land and air forces and that disarmament must include disarmament in
all these three directions. We need a Ministry of Defence in order that it shall become a Ministry of Disarmament, coordinating the disarmament efforts of the Navy, Army and Air Force.
But, that having being said, it is important to add that we have a special responsibility in the matter of naval disarmament, and a special opportunity of doing really valuable work in order to secure the acceptance of disarmament by other nations. In the first place, although it is admittedly true that air disarmament and army disarmament are problems of some technical difficulty, it is much less true of naval disarmament. I do not think that will be contradicted. In naval disarmament the essential thing to do is to limit the type of ships, the number of ships, the tonnage of ships, and the armament of ships. British naval experts have shown that this is a perfectly practicable problem. We have two working models of naval disarmament: the Treaty of Versailles and the disarmament of Germany under that Treaty, and the Treaty of Washington, of 1921. They are both wonderfully simple, and they are both standing proofs of the fact that, where there is the will and the power, there is a way to disarmament. Under the Treaty of Versailles the German Navy was reduced to very small proportions indeed, and it was largely the work of British naval experts. The fact that they have shown how simple it is encourages us to hope that, if the First Lord of the Admiralty would only instruct them to go ahead on a larger and more ambitious scale, they could easily suggest plans for making big reductions in the naval strength of all the Powers of the world by international agreement. I hope the German Navy, limited by the Treaty of Versailles to a few relatively small ships, may be regarded in the future not as a minimum, but as a maximum above which no other nation shall go, and that progressively below that we shall get a greater measure of disarmament verging towards complete and total disarmament which alone is the final solution of this problem.
With regard to the Washington Conference, there you have within certain limits a perfectly complete watertight and efficient system, due largely to the skill of British naval experts, as regards capital ships; and surely those experts are capable, if the First Lord will only
give them their head, of preparing plans for an extension of this system to other nations not included in the Washington Agreement, the smaller nations. Instead of encouraging disarmament, we are sending cut a Naval Mission to Chile, to naval advisory staff, consisting of five naval and one air officer. Have they gone to advise Chile how to disarm, or have they gone to encourage Chile to pile up armaments and so start an armaments race in South America, which has hitherto been free from this disease? Perhaps they have taken with them an agent of one of the armament firms to get a few orders on the South American Continent. Meanwhile, I submit that the experience of the Treaty of Versailles and the Washington Conference has proved that naval disarmament is technically a comparatively simple problem, and a problem on which British naval experience, if only it was enthusiastically enlisted by the political head of the Admiralty, could make a great deal of difference to its success.
I come to submarines, and here I was delighted to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that we are still in favour of the abolition of submarines. This Amendment asks for the scrapping of submarines. I entirely associate myself with it, and am glad to know that on that point, at any rate, we are in agreement. Further, I find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) when he said that a certain warning was necessary when this country asked for the abolition of submarines. It is intelligible that the chairman of Lloyds should be moved by humane impulses when a discussion of submarines is proceeding, but after all submarines are particularly objectionable to us in the same way that capital ships are particularly objectionable to certain other Powers, and I submit that, if we are to escape a suggestion of cant and insincerity when we ask for the scrapping of submarines, we shall have to go further and make an offer for the scrapping of capital ships as well. I would like to dissociate myself from the view which is held by some supporters of the abolition of submarines that you can transform war into a kind of parlour game which can be played according to humane and gentlemanly rules. I do not believe myself that the submarine is more
an instrument of frightfulness than a capital ship in action or a light cruiser blockading and starving non-combatant women and children. They are all in their own way instruments of frightfulness, for all war is an exhibition of frightfulness. Our ultimate object is not to make nice moral distinctions between one weapon and another but to abolish the whole lot.
Take another illustration on the same point. I have never been able to understand why death and disablement resulting from poison gas is supposed to be more cruel than death and disablement resulting from shrapnel or bayonet wounds, or machine gun bullets. They are all of a piece. We have to go the whole hog and seek to sweep them all away. That is what we have to fight for, and what we are aiming at in this Amendment is total disarmament by international agreement. If we have to take it in stages then that is all the more reason why we should get a move on with the first stage at once and not wait for someone else to make a suggestion with which we can agree, a course which seems to be the present policy of His Majesty's Government. When we talk about this increase in the expenditure on armaments, against which we are protesting, we recognise that one of the darkest features promoting this continual increase are the intrigues, the corruptions and the briberies of the armament firms. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) appears to be somewhat of a specialist on this subject and has, no doubt, read a most remarkable speech, an historical speech, delivered by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on the Naval Estimates in 1914, in which a complete and ruthless exposure was made of the proceedings of the armament firms in the pre-War period. only wish that that could be brought up to date, as, no doubt, it could be at the present time. It exhibits, amongst the directors of the armament firms, leading Conservative and Liberal politicians, retired civil servants, retired generals and retired admirals, and, among their shareholders, Bishops still on active service on behalf of the Prince of Peace.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: And the firms have written off millions of capital.

Mr. DALTON: That only shows that they had not secured the services of the hon. and gallant Member. The case against the armament firms as agencies for increasing expenditure and embittering international relations is that they have fomented war scares, that they have told lies through the Press, and that they have attempted to bribe Government officials in many countries.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any practical example whatever to prove his statement?

Mr. DALTON: I was just coming to one. This is all very interesting to those who are inclined to defend British armament firms. I am not suggesting that British armament firms are worse than Krupps or Schneiders or any of the other cosmopolitan fraternity. But this will interest the hon. and gallant Member, as a loyal British citizen. In 1913 the Japanese Admiral Ito was sentenced to a considerable term of imprisonment, by the judgment of a Japanese Court, for accepting bribes in connection with the building of a battle cruiser for the Japanese Navy, from representatives, first, of Messrs. Vickers, second, of Messrs. Yarrow, and, third, of a firm whose name has been familiar in recent Debates in this House—Messrs. G. and J. Weir, who supplied the minor adornments of the battle cruiser. Full accounts of this trial will be found in the newspaper "Forward," in case the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not read Japanese, but fuller accounts will be found in the Japanese Press of that date. Am I asked for further examples? [HON. MEMBEBS: "Yes!"] In 1923, in the course of the summer, I found myself in the much disputed Port of Fiume on the Adriatic, once a Hungarian and now an Italian port. I saw there the desolate ruins of the Whitehead Torpedo Works. That was a factory for the making of torpedoes, in which the controlling interest was held by our armament ring and notably by the firm of Vickers. Torpedoes had been made there for the Austrian navy, dividends on their manufacture had accrued to British share holders, and the torpedoes themselves sank British troopships in the Mediterranean during the War. So little does it matter, with the international ramifications of defence—so little does it
matter who gets killed with these weapons, as long as the shareholders receive their dividends.
Yet one more example. A little while before the War Armstrongs got a large order to fortify the Dardanelles. They built the forts of the Dardanelles, and put the guns into them. The dividends on that achievement were drawn by British shareholders. The guns from those forts helped to sink the British battleships in their attack upon the Narrows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mines!"] I dare say the mines were made by the same firm. Even if they were not, there is this further to be added—that Vickers had been supplying artillery with shells which were fired into the Australian, New Zealand and British troops as they were scrambling up Anzac Cove and Cape Helles. Did it matter to the directors of these armament firms, so long as they did business and expanded the defence expenditure of Turkey, that their weapons mashed up into bloody pulp all the morning glory that was the flower of Anzac, the youth of Australia and New Zealand, yes and of the youth of our own country? These men, these directors of armament firms, are the highest and completest embodiment of capitalist morality. The hon. Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse), like myself, is an ex-service man. Perhaps it was his good fortune, as it was mine, not to be in Gallipoli. Had he been there he might not have survived to sit and grin in this House when matters of this sort are discussed. This system, of which I have been giving a few examples in answer to requests, had its defenders before the War. I do not know whether it has defenders still.
Article 8 of the Covenant of the League says that the members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is "open to grave objection"—that is the anæmic language of official documents; I would have used a stronger term. I would have been glad if the Parliamentary Secretary or the First Lord could have told us in their speeches today what steps, if any, the Government are taking for the further control of the manufacture of armaments by private firms and of the arms traffic which still goes on. We believe that the only final
and drastic solution of the problem is to wipe out these accursed armament firms altogether, and to say that, what ever armaments are required, they shall be manufactured in State factories and State dockyards, and that private shareholders—

Commander BELLAIRS: Would the hon. Member—

Mr. DALTON: No. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) understands me. We fought an election together, and he won then. He will allow me, I am sure, on this occasion to finish my argument so as to allow a Division to take place at 10 o'clock. The principle for which we stand is a perfectly simple one—that the munitions of war should be manufactured, not by private enterprise, because it is evident that you lead shareholders in these firms into temptations that they cannot resist, but should be manufactured in State factories and State dockyards and that no export whatever should be allowed to backward peoples, to small nations who have lived quite peacefully and happily without large armies and navies and who should have no occasion to receive these benefits of civilisation from the richer countries. A beginning was made with the control of the arms traffic in the Convention of 1924 at Rome, which has not yet been fully carried into effect, and in the Washington Agreement so far as the signatories to it were concerned, and I hope that the Government, although they have given us no sign of it, are prepared to press forward along what is now, to a very large extent, a path of common agreement. We simply cannot tolerate, after the lessons of the War and the experiences we have had, a continuance of this gross abuse by the armament firms of their opportunities.
The Amendment which we are putting forward calls for an effort by His Majesty's Government to take the lead in this matter and to take the lead, not so much in itself disarming in advance of other nations, but in showing that it is willing to disarm with other nations; and to take an opportunity of putting all its naval experience and expertness at the disposal of the International Conference in order to carry out the largest amount of disarmament we can get. I believe the prestige of this country
is sufficiently great to enable us to put the job through at Geneva, if we only pull all our weight. The trouble is that we are not pulling all our weight. If we did so the prestige of this country, the strength of this country, the example of this country would be sufficient to make that Conference a tremendous and dramatic success. If, on the other hand, we are backward, the Conference may end in smoke and nothing may be done. My appeal is that Britain should lead in this matter; that we should lead in preparing for the achievement of disarmament along the lines already laid in outline before the Conference.
If we set an example to the rest of the world, I believe we shall get a tremendous rally of support from practically every other nation, or, at any rate, from all the decent elements in every other nation, which will be sufficient to carry that policy to victory. We are a Great Power not only in material wealth, but, if we will, we are a Great Power in daring and in imagination and in righteousness, and now is the time to prove that we can lead in these respects. Let us give an even stronger lead at Geneva than that given by Mr. Secretary Hughes for the United States in 1921 at Washington. Those who have studied the proceedings of that Conference know that the chief reason why it succeeded so easily, within its limited sphere, was because the United States came forward at the start with a big, daring, concrete, detailed, worked-out plan. If we do the same at Geneva the same success, I believe, will be ours. I appeal to the House to support the Amendment in order that those who fought in the War to end war may have some hope that they will die happy, having seen the world made safe, at any rate for their children, by the action we take to-day, and that when our time comes we who have sur-vised the holocaust of that War can say that we strove our hardest to make secure the supreme sacrifice of those who laid down their lives upon the battlefields and oceans of the world.

10.0 P.M

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am sorry to intervene at this late hour, but I find it necessary to express my views on this Amendment which appears to have some bearing upon the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) introduced his Amendment; yet, I find that it is inadequate and incomplete compared with the other Amendment to which I have referred. I feel that the present Amendment, while it has strong points in its favour, contains subtle elements of danger, and opens an avenue for the ambiguous phraseologist who can support it without supporting its logical consequence in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. As was said by the last speaker, there is very little difference between the cruelties and murders carried out by means of submarines, and the cruelties and murders carried out by long-range guns and other weapons.
When the representatives of the Admiralty were to-day pointing out that Britain emphatically demanded that submarines should not be used, they did not point out that the whole world appreciated the fact that the submarine was becoming a weapon against the British Admiralty bullies. Those nations who could not afford to spend large sums of money on naval armaments, found that the best weapon with which to keep off the British battleships, was the cheaper and most effective submarine. The demand by the British nation and the Admiralty that other nations should cut down their submarines is a very transparent piece of hypocrisy. It is a claim by the British Navy to smash up everybody and to advocate only those vessels which Britain possesses and which it is impossible for small nations to build. Britain hypocritically runs down the submarine, which is the only weapon of self-defence against the British bullies ruling the waves.
Though I admire the spirit and appreciate the good intentions of the Mover of this Amendment, I see in it nothing but hypocrisy and cant. In the second part of the Amendment we find that the wording provides a refuge for the ambiguous phraseologists—the people who talk of disarmament and five cruisers at the same time; the people who talk of peace and naval armaments at the same time. It sounds very well to stand up to-day and say that this question is to be settled simultaneously by all the nations of the world through the League of Nations. Within a few weeks we shall be told that
the League of Nations cannot discuss the problem because America and Russia are not in it. If the other nations do settle down to discuss it, then we shall be told by those who, as a mere political phrase, believe in the League of Nations, that there are dangers in this discussion, that France wants to curtail her own Navy and set up another Navy in the name of Poland, or that Italy wants to curtail her own Navy, but wants to set up another in the name of some other Power.
We have an example of that to-day in connection with British policy. The First Lord complacently told us that British naval policy was towards curtailment and disarmament, but that there was going to be an Indian Navy. Why deceive the world by such untruthful phraseology? It is not an Indian Navy; it is to be another instrument for bullying the Asiatic nations by the British naval power in Eastern waters. The people of India never asked for it, and have no voice in it. The only reason for calling it an Indian Navy, as the First Lord said, is that India will have to pay for it. The people of India will not be permitted to vote upon it, but will be told it is a reserved subject and that the Viceroy can help himself to as much money as he likes for it, while you deceive the world by saying you have created an Indian Navy. That means the British Admiralty are preparing for the Disarmament Conference by creating a second edition of the British Navy camouflaged as an Indian Navy.
That policy will be adopted by other nations on the League of Nations, and it is on this account that, while I support the Resolution in its spirit and intentions, I find that, when it comes to the actual test and working, it will again be a sort of putting off of the evil day and never taking any practical measures. It is on that account that we, who are sincere in our intentions, and who believe that this is a step towards disarmament, should equally be ready to vote for the Amendment, which means what it says and puts the whole position quite clearly. I was quite pleased with the hon. Member for Dundee, who is responsible for this Amendment, for making it clear that it will only be completed by himself going into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and we hope that everybody will
follow the same example. We are told by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), that we who oppose armaments are merely talking to the mob and the gallery. I personally confess to it. I am talking to the "mob," and I am talking to the "gallery." I candidly confess that I am not coming to this House to talk to the social snobs and swankers. I am coming to talk through this House to those whom you now describe as "mob" and "gallery," but whom, on election day, you describe as the democratic electors and citizens of Great Britain.
I am putting the point of view to this House which I would put to the mob and to the gallery, who are among themselves far more honourable and honest individuals than the average members in the top of society who do not call Themselves the mob and the gallery. The view of the persons in the mob and the gallery is to be taken into consideration, and from that point of view we should ask the Admiralty to explain clearly what they mean by the British Navy being absolutely essential to safeguard the ships bringing food. I quite agree with the Admiralty that the British Navy would be performing such a function if a war broke out, but the Navy is first provoking the war and then proving its usefulness in the war. But during times of peace what is the meaning of our food ships being guarded by our naval ships? It is nothing of the kind when there is no war going on. The ships of the nations go about freely, except when intercepted in Eastern waters by British armed forces. There is nothing in our experience in ordinary life to show that when the ships of trade and commerce are going about the seas certain nations come along and attack them or capture them. We have not seen, in modern days, a wholesale practice of piracy, and we have not seen that the British commercial vessels are always accompanied by torpedoes, cruisers, and battleships.
That is merely a talking point to frighten the ordinary person. The food ships and the commercial ships are quite, safe without any naval ships protecting them day by day in times of peace, and that argument in itself is not only incomplete, but very misguiding. About 85 per cent. of the people of this country find that their food is not safe and that
the abundance of their necessities of life is not secure, not only in spite of the big Navy, but on account of the big Navy, and the capitalist interests which are guarded and protected by that big Navy and the big Army. From their point of view, they require a machinery which would battle against the profiteers in foodstuffs, and not battleships which watch from a distance the ships carrying food to and fro. That is merely a talking point without any practical experience proving it to be true. It was suggested that we are there only for defence, but there is always a hilarious cheer when we say that the British Navy is to keep up the British principle of
Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves.
Therefore, you say two contradictory things at the same time. You pretend that you are keeping a Navy for the defence of your own little island home, and at the same time that you are keeping the same Navy to rule the waves of all the seas and oceans in the world. We find an example. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that now for the first time a ship was going into Chinese waters with an aeroplane service attached to it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Yes, we were told that for the first time a ship equipped with aeroplanes was now going out to Chinese waters. That is an indication. There were no ships bringing food from China to this country which were in danger. There were no ships that had sent an "S.O.S." to the Admiralty saying that the Chinamen were attacking them, yet we are told that this ship is going there in order to secure the safety of the British citizens in the country of the Chinese. If a Chinese ship came to Liverpool to safeguard the interests and safety of the Chinese citizens in Liverpool—

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: On apoint of Order. Has this anything to do with the Amendment on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is related to the words of the Amendment:
That this House views with great concern the vast expenditure upon the Navy.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: If we now forget the old spirit of the Navy being kept for ruling the waves of the ocean, and fall back on the claim that the Navy is kept
because other people have got their naval forces and we have to safeguard ourselves, I want to suggest quite seriously that it is not a practical measure to wait till the League of Nations calls a meeting of all the nations to come to an honest and a sincere conclusion for disarmament. They will not do it; hon. Members know that very well. There will be some intrigue, some plot, some hitch, some rearrangement of balance of power, some grouping within the League of Nations of smaller groups of allies, and so on. The only practical way, it seems to me, is that the Admiralty should now devote itself sincerely to coming to terms with large naval Powers individually. If, for instance, you claim that America and Britain are life-long friends, that they are never going to war with each other, then you should enter into a sort of partnership by maintaining common naval forces. You might even take into partnership Japan, and even have one-third of the personnel American, one-third Japanese, and one-third British in each ship.
If you are sincere in your professions that you do not intend to go to war with Japan, if you are really truthful and honest in saying that you are not building a dock at Singapore in order to attack Japan, if you are quite sincere in believing that England and America will never go to war, that it is unthinkable, then why is it so ridiculous for

America, Great Britain, and Japan to go into partnership, and to maintain one naval force, so that each of the three countries can be relieved of two-thirds of its naval expenditure? By such process of partnership, and by extending it, you would induce the League of Nations to adopt a measure for complete disarmament.

The other point which strikes me is this. Why should we be afraid, not only of discussing, but even of accepting quite frankly Amendments similar to that of which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and others have given notice? Those who vote for this Amendment, by voting simultaneously for that Amendment, encourage the League of Nations in the thought that there is a large and influential section of British opinion which not only wants other nations to do something, but which is prepared to face the risk, which believes in peace, which believes in the spirit of friendship, which does not believe in bombs and battleships, and is prepared to go forward. I, therefore, beg to support this Amendment, not in its wording, but in its spirit, and I also mean to support the other Amendment when it comes up.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes 113.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[10.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fielden, E. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Finburgh, S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Astor, Viscountess
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Betterton, Henry B.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gretton, Colonel John


Blundell, F. N.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gunston Captain D. W.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brass, Captain W
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harland, A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hartington, Marquess of


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hawke, John Anthony


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks,Newb'y)
Elveden, Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fairfax, Captain J. G
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bullock, Captain M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Henn. Sir Sydney H.


Burman, J. B.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. S Wh'by)
Mitched, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hills, Major John Waller
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Murchison, C. K.
Storry Deans, R.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Howard. Captain Hon. Donald
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hurd, Percy A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Templeton, W. P.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jacob, A. E.
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Jephcott, A. R.
Pilcher, G.
Tinne, J. A.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Bees, Sir Beddoe
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rentoul, G. S.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lougher, L.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watts, Dr. T.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Luce, Major-Gen. sir Richard Harman
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ruggles-Brice, Major E. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macintyre, Ian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rye, F. G.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Malone, Major P. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Withers, John James


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sandon, Lord



Meller, R. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Bowyer.


Merriman, F. B.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)



Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Amnon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert(Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt, Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh. J. C.


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland
Ritson, J.

Questions, "That Mr. Speaker do now

leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That 102,675 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 450 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 100,000 men.
The reduction I am moving is similar to one which has been moved on two previous occasions, except that on those occasions it was on the Army and the Air Force Estimates that the Amendment was moved. But the reasons are just the same, and the only difference in my position in moving this reduction lies in the fact that I am in a different geographical position from what I was on the last occasion. I am one of those persons who cannot quite alter my mind according to the place I happen to be in, and on this question I hold exactly the same view as I did 25 years ago. On that account, no matter what position or what place I am in, I shall still try to carry out those views. It is perfectly true that the party with which I am associated, and of which I am a member, at the Labour Conference turned down the following resolution:
That this conference is of opinion that it should be the policy of the Labour party in Parliament to vote against all Military and Naval Estimates.
I know that decision was supported by some of my hon. Friends who are now Members of this House, and amongst them was the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). That resolution was defeated by 2,229,000 votes against 808,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Probably only some two or three hon. Members will go into the Lobby with me upon this Amendment, but I have known causes supported at one time by a very small minority which afterwards have become big majorities. No doubt the vote will be heavy against this Amendment. Although the speeches made from this side, with about two exceptions, are speeches which, if they mean anything, mean that they should be voting with me in the next Division.
The position of some of us was that when Labour came into power our first duty would be to call a world conference for peace, and we should not start by reducing the Army in order to increase the Navy, or by reducing the Navy in order to increase the Air Force. We knew that we could not demobilise all the Armies in one week, and there is all the difference in the world between that and making a temporary arrangement until you can do away with armament altogether. The Government are now carrying out a policy to which the Labour party is opposed. I would like to point out that during the War the Labour party was divided as to whether we should support the War, and there were a number of conscientious objectors who suffered imprisonment for their opinions and who refused under any circumstances to take up arms. I appreciate what those men did, and I have honoured them for it, but I would like to point out that a good many are likely to refuse to take up arms in the next war, and if there be another war I hope it will be a case of "the old men first and the young men last." I am quite certain that if it is a case of the old men first there will not be any war.
Any man who is of military age, and would be likely to be eligible in the next war, has, however, no right to plead a conscientious objection to taking part in that war if he votes for the provision of armaments for other people to use. On that there cannot be any two opinions. If a man objects himself to use armaments, he has no right to vote for the manufacture of armaments for other people to use. Being in that position, although I am not young enough to be of military age—but I hope I am young enough in spirit to fight for anything I believe in—I want to call the attention of my own comrades behind me, and of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches, to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ponsonby) has been engaged upon what is called a great "peace letter" campaign; and, although it is perfectly true that the party to which I belong has decided, as a party, against the policy I am advocating, yet there is in our movement a very large number of men who support, at any rate in words, the principle that I am standing for here to-night. All those who signed
this peace letter pledged themselves that, if another war takes place, they will not take any part in it whatsoever, and I believe some tens of thousands of signatures have been obtained to that letter, which declares that those who signed it will take no part in the next war.

Viscountess ASTOR: Even a class war?

Mr. LANSBURY: The House, I know, at this time of night, is not a very good atmosphere in which to deal with a serious subject. The hon. Member for the Sutton Dvision of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is at all times very eager to, as it were, put herself in the wrong as regards her attitude of mind. I am not responsible for the class war, which is a part of the industrial and social conditions that have grown up, and I mean in this House, whatever I have done in public life, to help to get rid of the conditions that produce the class war. When the Noble Lady is as old as I am, and has done as much as I have to try to remove those conditions, she can chip in and say whatever she pleases, without the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott). I would point out to the Noble Lady that, whatever her consistency may consist of, my consistency on this matter cannot be questioned. I will not support, and never have supported, violence in any shape or form, by workers or anyone else. I am denounced by many people outside this House because of my attitude on armaments and violence for the working class to use, but if I, like the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth, believed in the use of arms at all, I should fight with the working class to turn those arms against those who oppress them at the present time in this country, and not in any other country.

Viscountess ASTOR: I would like an answer to my question. [Interruption.]

Mr. LANSBURY: I have given the answer—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better return to the Navy.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am arguing against the Navy and against the need of a Navy. The Noble Lady asked me what about the class war, and I have tried to tell her that I want to remove
the conditions that make for class war. If, like many hon. Members opposite, I believed in the use of arms at all, I should support those who want to use those arms against the possessing classes of the country and should never dream of going abroad to fight those who are not my enemies at all.
When the Noble Lady, with her usual politeness, interrupted me I was saying the hon. Member for Bright side has conducted a campaign in support of a peace letter that is to be presented to the Prime Minister, which pledges all who sign it to take no part in the next war. All those hon. Friends of mine behind who have signed it cannot with any consistency vote against this reduction, because if they are net going to take part in the next war they have no right to expect other people to take part in it. Mr. Ernest Bevan, Miss Margaret Bondfield, Mr. C. T. Cramp, the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie), and Mr. A. V. Swayles, who was then President of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, signed this letter:
The peace letter to the Prime Minister recently issued for signature, which contains a refusal on the part of the signatories to support or assist a Government which resorts to arms for the settlement of an international dispute, appears to us to be a good means of allowing people to express their abhorrence of the brutality, immorality and futility of modern war. We recommend it to the favourable consideration of trade unionists, who must realise that all prospect of social and industrial amelioration is vain so long as any possible menace of war remains.
That proves that there are a considerable number of trade unionists who, like myself, believe that the production of armaments and the organising of the means of war really means that there will be war. It was said just now that the British Navy was an insurance. I have heard that. I used to hear Lord Grey, then Sir Edward Grey, and I heard that famous speech of Lord Haldane, who spoke for three hours on the reorganisation of the War Department, and the whole argument used on those occasions was that we were to ensure that if we had a big Navy and an efficient Army that would really mean that there would not be any war. We know that it did not come off. We had a war. I suppose we are not going to deny that the War took place, and I suppose it is as true now as it has been at any time in the history of this country
that every war that Britain has been engaged in, certainly in my lifetime, and every war that I know anything about has had for its object not the uplifting of people, not the freeing of people, but the plunder of people by the most powerful class.
In order to bring that home to the Committee, I should like to point out what had happened in regard to a country where there is likely to be interference by the British Government, namely, China. I should like to point out the treatment that country has received at our hands. I will take the case of India first. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present, because I intend to quote a speech which he made, in support of what I have just said:
We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know that it is said at missionary meetings that we have conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I very seldom agree with him.
We conquered India as an outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we shall hold it.
Someone in the audience had the decency to call out, "Shame." The right hon. Gentleman proceeded:
Call shame if you like. I am stating facts.
I am stating what the right hon. Gentleman said, that we go into countries for plunder.
I am interested in missionary work in India, and have done much work of that kind, but I am not such a hypocrite as to say that we hold India for the Indians.
I do not know what the Under-Secretary for India thinks about that.
We hold it as the finest outlet for British goods in general, and for Lancashire cotton goods in particular.
What of our dealings with China. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Navy?"] We are told that we need the Navy to keep the seas and to carry our troops where they are needed. We wanted our Navy in 1840 to carry on a war against China. What was that war about? The Navy was used to insist that against the will of the Chinese people they should be compelled to allow the importation of opium. When that war broke out Dr. Arnold said:
The war was so wicked as to be a national sin of the greatest possible magnitude.
Those were days before such pacifists as I talked about these things. [Interruption.] This was the first war against China, and I am quoting in support of my statement that the British Navy is used in order t:-plunder weak nations. Mr. Gladstone said:
A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know of and have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband practice.
Sir George Stanton, one of our representatives at Canton who, I suppose, would be able to give facts and would not be likely to give them coloured against his own country, said:
I never denied the fact that if there had been no opium smuggling there would have been no war. Even if the opium habit had been permitted to run its natural course, if it had not received an extraordinary impulse from the measures taken by the East India Company to promote the growth which almost quadrupled the supply, I believe it never would have created that extraordinary alarm in the Chinese authorities which betrayed them into the adoption of a sort of coup d'etat for its suppression. Prom 1842 to 1858 the Chinese Government steadily refused to consent to the expansion of the trade.
Here is what a poor heathen Emperor said. [Laughter.] I am astounded that some people will grin at this sort of thing. If I were a patriotic Englishman like some hon. Members opposite I would go and hide my head in shame. This House boasts of its Christianity every morning. This is what the heathen Chinese Emperor said. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Navy?"] The Navy was the means by which you forced this iniquitious traffic on the Chinese people. This Emperor lost three of his sons through the vice of opium, and we are told that he died of a broken heart. That is something for the jeers of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He said:
It is true I cannot prevent the introduction of the flowing poison; gain-seeking and corrupt men will for profit and sensuality defeat my wishes, but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and misery of my people.
Our people, Christians, were not above getting plunder out of forcing these vices on the Chinese people against their will.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask what these arguments of the
hon. Gentleman have to do with the Amendment before the Committee for the reduction of the present personnel of the Navy? Is he entitled to produce material of this quality in support of his argument?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member was arguing against the Navy altogether.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to quote a whole series of historical statements in support of the reduction of the personnel of the Navy to-day?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In support of his argument he is entitled to make quotations.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to prove my contention that the British Navy has been used, not in defence but for offence, and in the most disgraceful manner. If the Committee would only bear with me, I think they would see that I will bring it right up-to-date.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is the hon. Member merely proving that if China had a strong Navy she would not have been forced to have this traffic?

Mr. LANSBURY: Here is another quotation:
When we steamed up to Canton and saw it covered with evidence of unrivalled industry and neutral fertility, I thought bitterly of those who with the most selfish object are trampling underfoot this ancient civilisation.
He says again:
Canton doomed to destruction through the folly of its own rulers! This abominable East, abominable not so much in itself as because it is strewn all over with our violence and cruelty. In our relations with China we have acted scandalously.
One Chinese is reported to have said to a missionary:
You foreigners exhort us to virtue. First take away your opium, and then talk to us about your Jesus.

Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the hon. Member really in order in criticising the Navy for what it did in 1860, when it was acting under the orders of the Government. He should move a Vote of Censure on the Government of 1860.

Mr. LANSBURY: If there are any Service Members here, I should like to
say that I am perfectly aware that when they join the Forces they are under orders and have to obey them, and I do not hold any single officer or man responsible for this.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): What did you say at the Albert Hall?

Mr. LANSBURY: Captain FitzRoy, you must really protect me from these interruptions. I should be out of order if I dragged in the Army, but what I said at the Albert Hall I am perfectly prepared to stand by if anyone challenges me upon it. I pass on to bring hon. Members a little nearer the present time. [Interruption.] The Marquess of Hartington, the late Duke of Devonshire, speaking in his capacity as Secretary for India in 1880—[Interruption]—said this:
I must make a protest against an invitation to consider this question from the point of view of the dictates of morality and to altogether neglect the subject as it relates to India and our Indian policy. My hon. Friend says he should be sorry to be suspected of judging this question on the low standard of Indian finance, but it is a question of Indian finance.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What has this to do with the Navy?

Mr. LANSBURY: It was the Navy which made it possible for British merchants to make fortunes out of the opium traffic and push it on to the Chinese people, and I do not want the British Navy to be used in the same way again now. I point out another thing. The celebrated Li Hung Chang—[Interruption]—said this—[Laughter]. It is typical of an Englishman to laugh at other people's language and names, and I am certain my pronunciation of this name was perfectly correct. All you ignorant people can do is to laugh at the name of one of the greatest Chinese that ever lived. I am astonished at your ignorance. This celebrated Chinese said what I think you are proving to-night:
A gentleman regards what he has got; a vulgar person what will pay. No man ever rivets the chains of slavery around his brother's neck but God silently rivets the other end around the neck of the tyrant.
And all that the chief or boss of hon. Members opposite can do is to laugh at—

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I did not interrupt.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hon. Members or their fathers sent to China—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or mothers!"]—That is a very sensible remark. I suppose you had a mother too. [Interruption.] I must ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to protect me—

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not be so easily led away.

11.0 P.M

Mr. LANSBURY: No speaker on the other side of the Committee has been subjected to anything like the treatment I have received. I do not want to notice interjections, but if a Member opposite, when I am quoting a Chinaman, chucks in a word about his mother, I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. The Gentleman whose ancestors have made fortunes out of opium might have the decency to remain quiet, or I shall say something. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee to refrain from interruptions.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was about to tell the Committee why I quoted China. It looked, after 1840, as if, with the cession of Hong Kong to this country and the settlement that we were able to make there, our position in China could never be shaken. I think that to-day we are reaping in China exactly what we sowed. I have read a book which I daresay other hon. Gentlemen have read, written by an American who stayed in China for some time. It is entitled, "Why China sees red," and the reasons he gives are very largely the reasons which I have given, though he mentioned many more which I have not time to specify.
No forcible means can save a nation or maintain what is wrong. It is because I hold that belief that I am against this Vote. China is a case in point. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have shouted because I quoted China. Let us take something much more modern. There are those present who will remember the time of which we have been reminded by the memoirs of the late Queen Victoria. I refer to the Russians and Constantinople. I remember sitting up in the
Public Gallery of this House and hearing the most famous of the speeches made by Mr. Gladstone and others during that controversy. At that time we were being urged to fight in order to keep the Russians out of Constantinople. We fought the Crimean War for exactly the same reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peck-ham (Mr. Dalton) called attention a few minutes ago to the Anzacs and others who lost their lives in Gallipoli. I suppose the House knows that we fought that fight in the hope that we should capture Constantinople and be able to hand it over to Russia, in fulfilment of a pledge to the late Czar that he should have Constantinople. I have had the advantage of having read the memoirs written by Sir George Buchanan, by the late French Ambassador at Leningrad, and by Signor Nitti, the Italian statesman. No one will deny that in 1856 and 1876 this country fought in order to keep Russia out of Constantinople. The men whose graves are all along the Crimea died for that purpose, but those who died in the last War fought to put Russia into Constantinople.
When I am told that the British Navy is necessary for British interests, I want to know what British interests really mean and of what they really consist. I desire, in conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not concluding because of anything hon. Members opposite have said. I am against enlistment in the Army and the Navy and the Naval Air Force because, as I see it, men are conscripted by hunger. They are not free volunteers. The great bulk of the men who join, according to the figures given from the Front Bench opposite, are unemployed. They are conscripted by unemployment; but, even so, those men when they enlist, and go out in the ships, do so, not for their own interests, but for the interests of and in support of capitalistic exploitation in every quarter of the world.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to give this description of the armed forces of the Crown?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to do so, if he holds that view.

Mr. LANSBURY: During the last War we were told again and again—and people
who contradicted it were locked up—that it was a war to end war, that once German militarism and the German Fleet were destroyed, we would have peace in the world.
We know that was a lie. We know that those who said it knew it was a lie. We know that it was propaganda in order to keep up people's spirits. We know that that war was waged, just as every other war is waged, on behalf of plunder and loot in Europe, in Asia, in Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw !"]—and we know it was an abominable lie to say we went to war on behalf of little Belgium. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw !"]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we should get on faster if hon. Members would allow the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to continue.

Mr. HANNON: He is slandering the forces of the Crown.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not. I am denouncing the diplomacy, secret and otherwise, which led to, and the cant and humbug of prelates and others who supported, the most predatory war in history.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are now getting too far from the Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Navy played a great part in the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I have not said otherwise. I have nothing to say except in praise of the men who joined the Navy and did what they thought right. I am challenging the use of the Navy in the late War which was engineered on behalf of the British capitalists. If anyone wants to know how the British Navy was used in the War, I commend to them the book just published containing the intimate letters and diary of Colonel House and I ask them to lead the statements of Signor Nitti, the Italian Minister, M. Paleologne—I think it was—the French Ambassador at Leningrad, and Sir George Buchanan, our own Ambassador at Leningrad.
When you have finished reading them you will know that the British Navy and the men whose lives were sacrificed, were sacrificed for some of the meanest and most contemptible policies of which this country or any other country has been
guilty. I challenge the whole position that one country or one nation was wholly responsible for what happened in that war between European nations, but I do maintain that the wars are never ware that help the workers or are wage don behalf of the masses of the people, who, however, pay, as they are paying to-day. I have been interrupted several times by being told that I dishonour the men who fought in the late War.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] What cant and humbug that is! Where is the man of you who can deny that this night 200,000 of the men who fought in your capitalist war are in Poor Law institutions? You talk about honouring the men—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is going too far from the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: There are men who fought in the British Navy in the workhouses of this country, and when I am told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about honour, ask the Minister of Health about honour.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have asked the hon. Member to get back to the subject of the Vote, and he has gone further from it than before.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am arguing that the men who joined up to fight in the late War, as a result of joining up, are, hundreds and thousands of them, now in Poor Law institutions, living on what hon. and right hon. Members opposite call pauper relief, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does his best to cut down that miserable portion that is given them, and the reason why I am objecting to this Vote is, first, that wars are conceived only—

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: You will sell your paper now!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to proceed with his speech without interruption.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should have finished some time ago but for hon. and right hon. Members. I was saying I am against this Vote, and am asking it to be reduced because wars when they are waged by the Navy are waged on behalf of capitalism and exploitation, and when the men come back home, instead of
being decently treated, they are treated as paupers with nowhere to live, or with their dependents living often in barns, workhouses and other institutions of a like character. I am also against it because whatever this House may think or say, I am sure that nations which depend upon this sort of force and this sort of methods in order to maintain themselves, in the end go down, and to-day, after the last War, we are reaping the result in poverty, in penury, and the destitution of multitudes of our people. Instead of falling victims to those who say, "Think of what will happen if you do not have armaments." I want the British people to consider what they do get when they do have the armaments and when they do have war. It is for those reasons that I move the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment had confined himself merely to arguing on pacifism and on the question whether it was better for all countries to do without armed forces, I should have had a good deal more respect for the Amendment than I have for some of those who, while paying a sort of lip-service to the Navy, spend all their time trying to vote against any sum which would make it efficient. He has not risen for the purpose of arguing on that line at all; he has risen to-night for the purpose of provoking and hurting the feelings of everybody who believes that we entered the War in a righteous cause, harassing the hearts of those who have lost what is dearest to them. He has attacked, not the capitalists of the whole world, not the armed forces of the whole world, but he has singled out his own country for his attack. I can only say that I think the House has listened to the provocative speech he has made with the greatest patience he could possibly have expected, and I am not going to argue the question with him. I am only going to appeal to the Committee not to be led into an angry discussion into which his speech naturally would tempt everybody. He told us when he got up he only expected to get two or three people to follow him into the Lobby. That shows the amount of support he thinks he will get. Against his arguments, so far as the Navy is concerned, I will simply say that if he thinks
this country is going to submit to abolishing the whole of our naval forces while other countries are keeping theirs, he has very much mistaken the temper and feeling of this House and country. I, therefore, hope we shall show our contempt for the arguments he has used, and the attacks he has made upon his own countrymen, by giving a silent vote against this Amendment.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: This Debate gives me the opportunity of raising the general question of disarmament before the Committee and the public opinion of the country. Many of us regard the experiences we went through from 1914 to 1918 as of really decisive importance. I regard that experience as being in a fundamental sense a test, for in a real sense a critical point was reached in the whole development of modern civilisation. If the Committee will bear with me, I should like to put forward three reasons why I think Great Britain should, in this affair, embark upon a policy of disarmament as a pioneer State in the setting of civilisation. The first reason I should like to bring forward in supporting this Amendment for a restriction of the British Navy is that we have not carried out since 1919 the solemn Treaty obligations into which we entered. The Committee will remember that when the Peace Treaty was drawn up, based on the experience of the preceding five years, we entered into a solemn agreement to deal with the whole problem of disarmament. I venture to remind hon. Members of the text of the Covenant. Article VIII reads:
The members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, and the enforcement by common action, of international obligations.
The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such, reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments.
That Covenant was translated into the German Peace Treaty, and applied by the compulsory disarmament of the defeated Powers in the late War. When the Covenant was applied to Germany, it was made perfectly clear that disarmament was a general obligation. The Preamble to Part V (Disarmament Clause) of the Versailles Treaty deals with the appli-
cation of this general question of disarmament. It reads:
In order to render possible the initiation of the general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air Clauses which follow.
The first draft Treaty was submitted to a good deal of criticism. Germany, it will be remembered, pointed out with regard to the disarmament clauses of the Treaty that she was prepared to agree to the basic idea of the Army, Navy, and Air Force regulations, provided it was the beginning of a general reduction in armaments. I know that the opinions of Germany on Disarmament, after 1914–19, have never been highly valued in this House. We did respond to the claim however put forward by the German nation at Versailles in 1919. We responded in a definite document on these lines:
The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible for Germany to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first steps toward that general reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote.
In the six years which have gone by since Germany and the other defeated Powers were disarmed, we ourselves have taken no serious action to promote even the smallest measure of disarmament at home, to reduce our arms in conformity with the principles we solemnly covenanted in 1919. In view of the enormous importance of that solemn declaration, not merely signed by the responsible statesmen in 1919, but underwritten by the lives of many millions of men, and of the fact that nothing has been done for six years, I put forward as one of the reasons for supporting the reduction in the personnel of the British Navy our omission to carry out the most important obligation underlying the Peace Treaty of Versailles itself.
A second reason for supporting this Amendment is that the conception of security of the modern State is shown by our experience over the last 20 years to be based upon an entirely wrong foundation. In the period before 1914 we supported British arms and promoted a policy of progressive increase in the expenditure on armaments on the
broad ground that we were confronted with an aggressive military nation. From 1906 to 1914 the main argument brought forward to support extensions of British arms was that we had growing up across the North Sea a military nation which was not content with passing an act for universal conscription in order to build up the most powerful army in Europe but had actually challenged the supremacy of the British Navy by developing a definite German naval policy. Year after year Conservative and Liberal Governments here declared that in spite of our professed desire for peace and for keeping down expenditure on armaments, we had no option, in the face of that growing military and naval power across the water, but to undertake a corresponding policy of expansion both on land and sea. That policy resulted in an expenditure by 1914 of something like £79,000,000 a year, and other civilisations broadly speaking, followed in the same direction, so that between 1881 and 1910 we had in the 7 leading industrial civilisations of the world a developing military policy. In those years from 1881 to 1910 the annual expenditure of those seven Powers on armaments went up from £132,000,000 to £350,000,000. I suggest that the idea lying behind this extraordinarily rapid increase in expenditure on armaments was common to them all, that of achieving security against a possible aggressor by the expansion of their fighting Services. I submit that the experience of the last ten years proves that we have destroyed that aggressive civilisation and the military power against which we were building until 1914 and we have not obtained that security which was our chief aim. The late war led to the colossal expenditure of £40,000,000,000, and at the end of it, with 10,000,000 killed, we still have to face the problem of security. We are just as far off a solution as we were in the old days before the German aggression. Even this year we are spending £117,000,000 on armaments and that is nearly as much as the whole of the seven great Powers spent collectively in 1881. Not only that but the whole outlook is one of progressive increase. There is a programme of naval construction which will involve an expenditure of £58,000,000 in the next four years, and we know that we are committed to an expenditure for a naval base at Singapore of £12,000,000. Although there is to be a
slowing down in the Air Service this year, later we are going to have a steady increase in the actual expenditure on the Air Service, so that we are still confronted with the same kind of policy of defending the British nation against hypothetical enemies as in pre-War days. Instead of Germany we have Japan, France, the United States and Italy as potential enemies. Therefore, I submit that the search for security by modern States through progressive armaments does not bring any kind of success, and all through the last 25 years it has been a failure. The fact is during that period we have gone through the greatest war in the history of civilisation using the same kind of motive of seeking security through defence and arming for security. I submit on that second broad issue we have the most grave grounds for being sceptical as to the political value of the method of armaments we have followed during the last 25 or 30 years.
I want to support this amendment in the third place because I believe that the greatest single problem with which we have to deal in the development of modern civilisation is the problem of peace and war. It has become even a commonplace in this House that a war in the future will actually lead to the destruction of civilisation, that is to say, that the use of military force by modern States carries with it the greatest single evil and menace which confronts modern civilisation. I want to put forward the view that the last 125 years have caused such a profound change in the drawing together of civilisation and in the essential interdependence of all parts of civilisation throughout the world, that we cannot pursue the national policy of armaments which may have been a good policy in the Middle Ages and before the Middle Ages.
The essential problem from the point of view of the modern State is that, because the several States of the world are building up a national or Imperial military policy, they are bringing about a profound division in the unity of civilisation, and, unless we can learn to rationalise this power which the State possesses, we are heading for complete disaster in the course of the 20th century. We have in the civilisation of the world plenty of examples in favour of the view
that it is possible to organise the common life of civilisation without this tremendous handicap of competing State organisations which have the exclusive power to use military force to settle their problems. The common people furnish the example, showing how we can deal with those problems internationally without this power. The international co-operative, trade union, Socialist, Church, cultural, or scientific movements and associations all give evidence of the common unity of civilisation and of ability to solve their problems without being driven on to the rocks of militarism.
The biggest problem which the British House of commons has to deal with is how to escape from the essentially evil traditions of the State which have been inherited from a time when there may have been something to be said for the use of force. We are face to face with this use of military power for national and Imperial purposes, and are, in its exercise, breaking up the whole fabric of civilisation. I do not see any way out of the difficulty. The First Lord accused my hon. Friend of attacking British militarism and neglecting the larger militarism which exists throughout the world. We have the obligation, as Members of this House of Commons, not so much of dealing with the policy of other nations. I believe that, just as Britain has been great in promoting forward movements for research and invention which have made for the progressive uplift of civilisation, so it is possible for Britain again to become a leader, a creator and an initiator. We have had far too much talk in this country, during the last 10 years, of the militarism of other people; our real problem is the consequence of our own Imperial Policy. Because I believe that there is in us, as a people, the international capacity to solve these problems, I want to oppose strenuously the continuation of the British Navy in its present size, and to put forward the proposition that it should become our chief interest and concern in this British House of Commons, in our lifetime, to take the view that it is possible for us to convert our huge expenditures upon armaments into peace expenditures, and transform our State from a military State to what it ought to be, and can be if we are only willing and work for it. We may
expend our energy and power, not in extending the British Empire, not in pursuing economic policies which mean the degradation of people in other parts of the world, but in organising in order to make our British Empire, not necessariy large, but something of which we can he proud, because of the spiritual, mental and moral qualities of the men and women in it, and bringing definitely to an end the habitual assumption that we white people have the right to degrade and subordinate yellow people and black people. If we do not alter the essential outlook of our political policy and change it we are tending inevitably to war in the very near future. Just as men have gone' out on crusades to get rid of slavery, just as men have taken up a pioneer position to challenge the essential evils of the wage-earning class under modern capitalism, so we in this House have a duty to try to formulate a new attitude towards the fundamental problem we have to deal with, that of peace and war. It is no use in the 20th century, in the light of the experience of 1914 to 1918, resorting to half measures. The time has come when this nation can take a great naval lead, not waiting till France or China or Russia comes along, but trusting to the higher forces of human nature instead of dissipating our strength in naval and other ways that can only lead to disaster.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: This Amendment is in effect one that must have for its purpose the destruction of the British Navy. My hon. Friend, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will fully agree that a reduction of 100,000 men in the Navy would bring it to an end.

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly.

Sir H. SLESSER: I would point out in the first instance, as my hon. Friend has perfectly frankly said, that the Labour party has decided at its annual conference, by a majority of nearly 2,000,000 votes, that the party should not, as a party, vote against the Navy, or Air, or Army Estimates. A reduction of the Vote by 100,000 men, in my opinion, is a vote against the Navy Estimates. Therefore, whether I am right or wrong, no one can say that in opposing this Amendment
as I do, I am doing anything other than the Labour party conference has decided to be the policy of the Labour party, and if there are Members here who take a different view, which they are entitled to do, they cannot say the view I express is contrary to that of the Labour party, as expressed at its annual conference. Another point that moves me to oppose the Amendment is this. I cannot understand how anyone who has been a Member of a Government can consistently vote for the Amendment. My hon. Friend is perfectly within his rights, but those who have been Members of a Government and have taken an oath allegiance to the King must have understood when they entered the Government, that they were making themselves responsible for the defence of the nation. No doubt my hon. Friend would decline to accept office on such terms, but as I happened to be a Member of the Government, I feel it would not be right, taking the view that we were right to form a Government, not to take upon ourselves the ordinary obligations of national defence, one of which is at present the maintenance of the Navy. The speech we have just heard was very relevant to the question of mutual die-armament by all the nations of the world. I voted for the Amendment the Labour party supported a few hours ago in favour of a general reduction of the armaments of the world, but to ask this nation alone to disarm when other countries are fully armed seems to me quixotic, and not a view that can possibly by taken by people who are or may be responsible for Government or for their representatives in this House.
My third and last point is this. I have spoken of the Government and of the Labour party. I now want to speak personally of my constituents. I was not returned in order to abolish the Navy. I never made it a point in my programme that if I were returned I would propose to abolish the Navy. I have no mandate to abolish the Navy or to reduce it by 100,000 men. For these reasons first because my party has, in its Conference, decided against this policy; secondly because my party, by forming a Government, has undertaken the defence of the country; and lastly because my constituents have not given me a mandate to vote for this Amendment, I shall vote against it.

Mr. MAXTON: I propose to support the Amendment. Everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said about the position of the Labour party is accurate. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) did not attempt to convey the idea that he was expressing more than the views of a minority of this House. He admits that it is a minority section of the House, but realises that it is a minority which has a perfect right to be heard and to be heard with a little more courtesy than has been shown this evening. My view differs somewhat from that of my hon. Friend. I cannot claim to have any other than the same low ethical standard which obtains generally throughout the House. I do not say that in all oases I would refrain from the use of physical force. In many cases I should be very strongly inclined to use it, and I think it might be used to very useful effect. But I do not believe that the working classes of this country, as this country is at present run and as wealth is distributed, have anything to fight for. Sixty per cent. of the wealth is owned by one per cent. of the people. The other 99 per cent. of us have to scramble for the 40 per cent. of wealth, and a big proportion of the 99 per cent. get a very small amount in the scramble. Very few of the working classes whom I represent own one scrap of land of the British Isles, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have no desire or intention that they shall own any part of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If they have any such desire I cannot see any evidence of it in the legislation before this House. The big proportion of the people whom I represent have no rights except the rights that they can obtain in relief from the parish councils or boards of guardians in Scotland. Therefore, I hold the view very strongly that the working classes have no primary interest in the maintenance of a Navy to defend the land which they do not possess. I am not going to ask working people who have not money enough to get their breakfast, to indulge in the luxury and expense of a Navy. If this were a country in which the mass of us had something to defend, I would call upon the working people to defend it. The position at the present time is that they have nothing to defend, and if they are not to have something to defend I am
certain that the people they ought to fight are not black men in India or yellow men in China, but the capitalist class in Great Britain. For their own advantage and the ultimate advantage of the nation they ought to destroy the power and privilege of the land-owning class, to knock down the capitalist system, and to get control of the land for themselves. When they have obtained the ownership and control of their own land it will be time for them to consider how they will defend it. I propose to support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.

Mr. J. JONES: I have listened this evening with very great interest to speeches which have been more or less of a sentimental character. I am one who has belonged to the Socialist movement ever since I was a boy of 17. I was brought up to believe in my own country—a country in which we are particularly interested. We are Nationalists first and internationalists afterwards. Probably that may not be accepted by some of our friends as being good philosophy; but I find the greatest Nationalists in this House are those who come from particular parts of Great Britain. You must not touch White-chapel with a 40-foot pole, and no man may interfere with Scotland. I am one of those who believe if a country is worth having it is worth fighting for; if it is worth living in it is worth defending. The workers of this country have the power, if they have the will, to make any form of Government they like. There are 20,000,000 electors; 15,000,000 of them are men and women who have to work for their living. A large number of them see more dinner-times than dinners.
As far as we are concerned the Navy, as it has been described this evening, is not merely a force that is going round the world seeking what it may devour. For good or evil under Capitalism; this country has not been able to provide for its own needs in the matter of food and one of the principal functions of the Navy is to keep the waterways of the world open for the supply of our necessities. I have no desire to see Armies, or Navies. I am as pacifist as anybody, except when somebody hits me. I want to realise where we are. I should to-morrow or at any other time vote for any resolution which will mean the dropping of arms and the people of the world
coming together on the basis of brotherhood and fraternity, but I am not going to shake hands with a man who has behind him a dagger. There are some countries who are not quite so advanced in civilisation as my friend below and I am not going to trust the other fellow until I quite understand where my trust is going to lie. To carry this Amendment to-night means the abolition of the British Navy. We cannot make such a move until we get an understanding with other peoples. The world is not made up of sentiment. Facts count for more than theories and if theories do not fit the facts, so much the worse for the theories. The fact is there that we are not living in a world where everybody wears bobbed hair. We have to take the world as it is.
Some of us on these benches have a free hand, and we are willing to hold out the hand of friendship to all countries of the world. We are prepared to carry out an honourable understanding, and to say that the day of the sword has gone and the day of brain has begun to dawn. We are willing to make all the sacrifices necessary, but we are not going to be the first to turn all our weapons down and allow other nations to have the advantage. That is all I can say. I joined the Socialist movement at the age of 17. I am still a Social Democrat. I believe in democratic Socialism and am prepared to fight for it. I am not arguing whether we are right or wrong. In the late War some of us took a certain attitude for which we have been condemned. Our attitude was that this was the best country we knew. It was bad enough, not as good as we should like it to be, but some of my friends on this side would take the first passage across the water if the Germans ever came here. I do not say we are as good as we ought to be, but we are as good as the next, and with what little interest we have we are prepared to co-operate together for a common end. Everyone wants peace; most of my friends opposite want the pieces. So far as I am concerned I object to the abolition of the Navy which is what the Amendment means if carried to its logical conclusion. The British Navy is not a mere predatory force. I am sorry for what has happened in the past, but if the British Navy were scrapped tomorrow some other power would take its place; and would the
world be any better? I suggest we should go on working in the direction of peace by international arrangement. Let us understand where we are. The world cannot afford to spend its money in riotous living. We cannot afford to go on building battleships, developing armies and forces for destroying human life, but as long as other countries are not prepared to meet us, we have to protect ourselves. Therefore I am opposed to a proposition which means the abolition of the British Navy.

12.0 M.

Mr. BARR: For some years it has been the habit to submit an Amendment of this kind on the Army, the Air, and the Navy Estimates, in order to afford the anti-militarists an opportunity of putting forward the principles that some of us hold. On former occasions we have been able to use the opportunity to greater advantage than we have this evening We are not opposed to what seems to be the most practical way of reducing armaments; that is, by general consent, but we wish to take this opportunity of voicing our opinions on this general subject. No doubt the Amendment in itself can be held to be crude and absurd and impossible, but proposals just as crude and absurd have been the precursors of the great things in the history of the world. We hold that it is for our country not only to speak of peace, but in a very real way to "allure to brighter worlds and lead the way." It has been stated from the opposite side that some of the things said in support of the Amendment have wounded those who had suffered, or whose friends had suffered, in the War. I think we share common sorrows in this House. We who are seeking to lead the forward movement towards international peace at least are seeking to fulfil the high ideals of those who were so dear to us, who laid down their lives that war might be no more; that, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, we should be "here dedicated to the great task remaining for us; that we should here take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion."
The noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) referred to the class war. I wish to say what has been said before in this House, that the upholders of class interest are the real fomentors of class war. Hume Brown in
his "History of Scotland" said there never was any class war in Scotland but there never was anything else. It is the provoking of class distinction that makes the real class war. We cannot get away from it. The noble Lady does not understand the fundamental position of the Labour party if she does not know that we stand for the achievement of our ends of equality and brotherhood by pacific means and by no other.

Viscountess ASTOR: Mr. Wheatley!

Mr. BARR: Certainly. But I will speak for myself, though I can also speak for the great body of those who form the Labour party. Anyone who knows the Labour party knows that it seeks to achieve its ends, not by violence, but by constitutional means. As to what was said about nationalism, I claim to have as keen an interest in that, as keen a love of my country as any one. He is "the true-cosmopolite who loves his native country best." But we wish to assert that you can never put away war by preparing for it. You cannot extinguish a fire by laying in paraffin oil, and pouring it upon the conflagration. The more you pile up armaments, the greater is the unrest created. Cavour said that you could do everything with bayonets except sit on them. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) spoke about the defence of the nation. It is difficult for many to realise that we hold that a nation which will go forward in the path of peace as a pioneer will have the greatest possible security; and that a country confident in its justice and righteousness and love of peace, has the surest defence—a defence which armaments can never provide. I take, as an illustration, the fact that when duelling was common in this country, it was held that the only safe man was the man who carried arms; that human nature being what it was, men must carry arms, and that duelling was inevitable. Now the position is quite the reverse. The man who carries arms gives and gets challenges; the man who does not carry arms walks in safety. [An HON. MEMBER: "With the force of the law behind him"] Exactly—he walks in safety because the law courts have come in—and we are in favour of international law courts. When international law courts have been established navies and armies will be as
obsolete for the nation as the blunderbuss and the pistol are for the individual to-day. When I was in the United States, near Niagara Falls, I saw a great monument to Sir Isaac Brock who fell in the war between Canada and the United States in 1812, but now for 100 years there has been no war between the United States and Canada, and there is not a single fort along 3,000 miles of boundary. The security lies in the fact that there are no forts. In disarmament they find security.
It may be there are risks to be taken. Somebody has said it would be a fearful risk if we were to act in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount. Many of us hold there are greater risks in defying it and neglecting it than in following it. Reference has been made to the backward races of the world and the need of defending them. We have an ideal of service in relation to the backward races, the ideal which William Penn had when he went among those races saying that it was not his custom to carry arms. What was the result in his case? Did the savages fall upon him? No, on the contrary, their chief immediately called upon his warriors to lay down their arms, and for 70 years there was unarmed security in Pennsylvania. Our missionaries go unarmed; some of them have fallen, but far more would have fallen had they gone forth armed. We want to set before these backward races the ideal of a nation seeking to fulfil the highest Christian principles. During the American War of Independence the Bishop of Peterborough made a remarkable declaration in another place. On 7th December, 1778, speaking of the barbarities of war and the excesses of our armies in North America, he said:
If such is the Christianity we are henceforth to propagate among the Indians, it is better for their teachers, better for themselves, that they should live and die in ignorance. If they are to be involved in OUT guilt, take not from them their plea of mercy. But let them have it still to urge at the Throne of Grace, that they have never heard of the name of Christ.
It is because we desire to advance in the path of a real Christian Commonwealth that we are prepared to cast our vote with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. We are not the first in this House to advocate such principles. As you go near the Central Lobby you come to the statue of John Bright, and I never
take visitors round the House without repeating to them the words John Bright used on the outbreak of the Crimean War, and with those words of his I will close, because they express at least the spirit that lies behind us in our Amendment this evening. He said, that but for the wars of the previous "seventy years:
This country might have been a garden, every dwelling might have been of marble, and every person who treads its soil might have been sufficiently educated. We should indeed, have had less of military glory. We might have had neither Trafalgar nor Waterloo. But we should have set the high

example of a Christian nation, free in its institutions, courteous and just in its conduct towards all foreign States, and resting its policy on the unchangeable foundation of Christian morality.

That, after all, is the only lasting security for any Nation.

Question put,

"That 2,675 officers, seamen, boys, and Royal Marines, together with 460 for the Royal Marine Police, be employed for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 186.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[12.12 a.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Barr, J.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfeil, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Scrymgeour, E.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John



Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lansbury and Mr. J. Hudson.


Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell



Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.



Ponsonby, Arthur
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duncan, C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Elveden, Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Astor, Viscountess
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)


Atkinson, C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macintyre, I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G. 
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Balniel, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.


Bennett, A. J.
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merrilman, F. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzoni, Sir John 
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brass, Captain W.
Gates, Percy
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
 Gee, Captain R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abrahan
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Buchanan, G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oliver, George Harold


Bullock, Captain M.
Gretton, Colonel John 
Pennefather, Sir John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph 
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harland, A.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tt'y)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Christie, J. A.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rose, Frank H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hayday, Arthur
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cope, Major William
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Couper, J. B.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) 
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hore-Belisha, Leslie 
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) 
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon F. S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dalton, Hugh
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Day, Colonel Harry
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Storry-Deans, R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyene)


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wiggins, William Martin



Templeton, W. P.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Viscount Curzon.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Question put, and agreed to.

WAGES, &C, OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,718,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. of officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1927.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2 375,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at Home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1927.

VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,423,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927.

NAVY (EXCESS) 1924–25.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good excesses of Navy expenditure beyond the grants for the year ended 31st March, 1925.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

BRISLINGTON PARISHES (TRANSFER) MEASURE, 1926.

Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Brislington Parishes (Transfer) Measure. 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
This Resolution, together with another one standing in my name on the Order Paper is quite uncontroversial in character. Both of them have been carefully examined by the Ecclesiastical Committee representing the two Houses of Parliament, which recommends them for acceptance.

RURAL DEANERIES OF PONTEFRACT AND HEMSWORTH (TRANSFER) MEASURE, 1926.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Rural Deaneries of Pontefract and Hems-worth (Transfer) Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."—[Major Birchall.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.